@T-J
see post 26

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Tpod

Too long, didn't read. Gone back over it, and you're wrong.

Civil partnerships don't give the same rights, protections and responsibilities as marriages.

Your civil partner is not your next of kin, for example. Nor do you gain any of the advantages written into the tax code for married couples. Also, if a pair of civil partners leave the country, holiday or whatever, their relationship has no recognition by any other state - they are effectively single and are treated as such by every other nation's legal institutions, unlike a married couple. Community of property is another grey area. These are all issues of major import right there that I've just listed off from memory that separate marriage from civil partnership.

You also bring children into the definition of marriage.

So, what about a couple who marry but don't have kids? Are they really married? Should they be allowed to marry if they don't want kids? What about a marriage in which one or both partners is infertile? Applying your logic, they should be restricted to civil partnerships too.

The only other explanation is that you want to deny certain people certain legal rights based on their gender and sexuality. Which seems petty and mean-spirited to me.

@T-J

Well your right, that post was a bit on the long side, it had to be.
In reply:

Should gay civil marriage become law & the 'married' couple goes to one of the majority of countries around the world that don't have either gay civil marriage, or civil partnerships, then they would still as now be classed as single ( I will find you a link for this if your not convinced).

Not next of kin - That is simply not true, 'A civil partner always has authority to act as next of kin.' http://www.civilpartnerships.org.uk/NextOfKin.htm.

Tax code - Tax is a very complex issue. The large majority of tax related benefits apply exactly the same whether you are married a civil partnership e.g. Married Couple's Allowance (includes civil partnerships).

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/IncomeTax/Taxallowancesandreliefs/DG_078312

On a more general not most complex legislation gets amended as civil partnerships have & will continue to be, so any minor issues that still remain will get ironed out.

Children & marriage - Whilst procreation & then providing male & female role models provides the best possible environment for child development I wasn't claiming it was the sole legitimate reason for heterosexual marriage!

I have no interest in deny anyone genuine rights, this change is nothing to do with rights it is about uniformity for no genuine benefit for anyone. However there will be considerable negative impact on society should it become law - see BigD's post 25.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Thread

To reply to the question "Gay Civil Marriage In UK at a cost of 3.7 million - good use of tax payers money!?" I say yes.

Considerably more millions has already been spent on inquests, inquiry's, appeals, and high court rulings on this subject. It would be good to put it to bed, once and for all. No pun intended.

As to wither we are redefining the meaning of marriage, well we've done that many times before. Sometimes we said you could have many wives, other times we've said if your spouse dies, you can't remarry. Then we had marriage between partners of differing religions being a no-no. This idea that marriage has stood the time unchanged is a nonsense.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

Same sex marriages are not the biggest problems the civilised European countries suffer from. But, of course, it's advised due to pc/newspeak to ignore the elephant in the room and instead go for less dangerous subjects.

@Tpod

If upgrading Civil Partnerships to Marriage will cost £3.7 million then don't do it. Instead downgrade Marriages to Partnerships and save tons more. Assuming the 10% of gays bantered about is true then we could save the UK about £37 million.

@BrianK
I don't think that idea would work out to well for anyone really; I hope you were only joking.

That 10% figure does tend to be what most people think. This is probably because a lot of gay people go into show business & other media related jobs, so are over represented.

The UK government estimate is actually 5%. This figure + or - 2% appearers to be the same in pretty much all countries.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Tpod

Over represented !!!

Showbiz & the media may well seem to have a large proportion of "gay" people in them but overall the vast majority are heterosexual, so it only seems to some that they are over represented...

What the frig does it matter what someones sexual orientation is to anyone except the individual themselves. I don't claim to understand why "gay" people are "gay" and it's none of business either....

I personally don't believe in religion but I don't run around asking folk to sign petitions to repeal or have any laws new or old changed or not to be allowed just because it's has some link to religion in it or that it's going to cost me the tax payer some money...

There are countless things your tax money gets genuinely wasted on each and every day, why not petition all those too !!!

Thing is there are laws passed & legislation drawn up that depending on your viewpoint you feel are either worthwhile to you or not. It's give and take here, you can't only have tax payers money spent on just the things you agree with and whine about tax money being spent on things you don't like. Not everyone agrees with your views and you don't have to agree with others but c'mon you can't have everything your own way and not expect others to have theirs...

_________________

@Tpod

Quote:

I don't think that idea would work out to well for anyone really; I hope you were only joking.

Yes joking but using a thought exercise. If people are claiming 'Civil Partnerships' give all the same rights as 'Marriage' but marriage costs more therefore we shouldn't promote same-sex relationships due to cost then shouldn't we, again for cost and if everything is the same, only have Partnerships?

And if the number is 5% of the population is 3.7million in costs then certainly changing to Partnership for the other 95% will be a much larger net savings. So, if the goal really is saving money why save 5pence when they could save 50pence? Save the 50pence!

@BrianK

The cost bit mentioned only come from introducing new legislation nothing to do with any cost of gay civil marriages themselves.

If you take a quick look at my post #26 & BigD #25, you will see the cost certainly isn't the only issue.

Last edited by Tpod on 28-Apr-2012 at 03:46 PM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Franko

When did i say anything about religion. Okay I have suggested others look at BigD's post which includes religion related issues along with a lot of other negative effects. Take a peak at post #26 if you want to really know why I have a problem with this

Last edited by Tpod on 28-Apr-2012 at 03:49 PM.
Last edited by Tpod on 27-Mar-2012 at 03:47 PM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@Tpod

Quote:

Tpod wrote: @Franko When did i say anything about religion.

I never said you did...

I was just making a point and happened to use religion to do so...

_________________

@Franko
Fair enough, by the way I like your new avatar ... don't worry I'm not flirting with you

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@BigD

Quote:

Read my previous post.

I just did, and I also read the source of your post #25. Basically what you are saying is that we should all be forced to live as "Christians" regardless of our own beliefs because only "Christians" have any understanding of the principles of truth, justice, liberty, love etc.

1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman
Now that the civil authorities have prohibited polygamy. once the civil authorities redefine it marriage will be the union of two people.

2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships
And once the new definitions come into force the two sets of laws will be streamlined and simplified, removing the scope for discrimination.

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic
Politicians do all sorts of things without consulting their constituents, or putting it in their election manifestos. You claim that this is being done to "appease a small minority" but I suspect that there are more openly homosexual individuals than there are regular churchgoing Christians. By regular churchgoing I do not mean "hatch match and despatch" church visitors.

4.Equality does not mean uniformity
Nobody is claiming otherwise, but with the examples that are given of groups being excluded from certain activities there is a valid reason, so what is your valid reason for claiming same gender couples should be excluded. I note that the item concludes that marriage should be for life, does this mean that you will soon be campaigning to abolish divorce? Currently marriages in UK last as long as they did in the 12th century. Back then they ended in the death of one of the parties, now many marriages end in divorce. Is the existence of divorce the reason for our current longer life expectancy?

5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society
Everything that you say about the idealised marriage is true however you are avoiding two key facts. Firstly the offspring of the nuclear family described are in no way threatened because others outside the family lead a different lifestyle, and secondly same gender partners cannot between themselves produce any offspring. Any children raised by same gender parents are often the biological offspring of one of the partners, or in a very few cases adopted, having no biological connection to either partner. These children are not snatched away from their mothers to be somebody elses plaything but are being given a better life than they would otherwise have had.

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship
While it is true that you need a male and a female to produce a child, marriage is not a biological necessity in the act. Some people have long happy and fulfilling marriages withot producing any offspring, where others see fit to spawn offspring with multiple partners without considering matrimony, or even paying for the upkeep of their whelps.

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive
In the long run the opposite will be the case as there will be one set of laws that apply to all contractual personal partnerships regardless of the gender of the parties to the contract.

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage
Just as they were forced to teach that people of different race have equal rights, and that females are not second class, or that it is permissible to follow different faiths. Has it occurred to you that the people who object to this may actually be the bigots and homophobes that they do not wish to be seen as?

9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage
Oh yes, here it comes, the old "thin end of the wedge" claim. This point ends by wanting to "keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’. " Do you remember my point in item 4 about marriage duration now as against the 12th century? Is murder a viable alternative to a trip to the divorce court?

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination
Don't you mean it will be another nail in the coffin of the current faith based discrimination that gives a sanctimonious and self righteous minority, the authority to interfere in other peoples private affairs, and force their opinions down other peoples throats, simply because their own personal invisible friend tells them that they can.

On a separate note, I am old enough to remember homosexuality being illegal, women needing their husbands, or fathers signature on credit agreements, and non-whites being routinely referred to by various derogatory terms that are no longer deemed acceptable. Although I am not a member of either of these groups, and as such never suffered from any of the discrimination, I am glad that the world has moved on from what it was, so "calm down dear", they're not making it compulsory.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

so "calm down dear", they're not making it compulsory.

What? Awe...

Forever alone.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

This whole argument about the extension of rights for gay couples being "undemocratic" based on the fact that gay people make up such a small proportion of our society is, frankly, absurd and, though I hate to say it, offensive.

In the UK, we still live in a society where the majority of people are white. Does this mean non-whites don't deserve equal rights because, by virtue of their minority status, there aren't enough of them to swing a democratic mandate?

Similarly, there are far more able bodied people than disabled people in this country (and in general). Are they not entitled to specific rights and protections to ensure fair access to amenities, employment and so on?

Protections against sexual discrimination, religious discrimination, disability discrimination, sexuality discrimination and so on exist not because of some specific democratic mandate, but because it is only right and proper that these protections exist. There is more than sufficient consensus across the political spectrum to ensure that legislation like this, irrespective of whose manifesto it may or may not have been included in, is written into the statute books.

I hate to use the term - I hinted at it previously - but the arguments against gay marriage presented in these pages are plain and simple bigotry.

bigotry | noun
~ bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

I appreciate that an Amiga forum is hardly the place to have these types of discussions, but the OP must accept that by opening this topic and encouraging signatories to the petition, the debate became fair game.

I also appreciate that the OP and some subsequent posters won't take kindly to my use of the term "bigotry". However, it's simply a fair observation based on the preceding evidence.

I'm encouraged that the majority of posters are happy with the prospect of equal marriage rights for gay couples, or are largely ambivalent to it. I suspect this is a fair reflection of society in general and look forward to the day my married gay friends and family can enjoy the same status, protections and provisions afforded to straight couples through this age old institution.

AndyC

@Nimrod

I meant to say - loved your post

AndyC

@Tpod

Quote:

The cost bit mentioned only come from introducing new legislation nothing to do with any cost of gay civil marriages themselves.

Thinking of the additional expense for more Wedding catering, more Wedding Flowers, more facilities rentals, more outfit purchasing, etc. I'd assume the net effect on the economy would be positive.

Quote:

If you take a quick look at the other post I put up on this, you will see the cost certainly isn't the only issue.

Like?
Quote:

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.

Not always. The bible and other books document marriages of man and many women.

Quote:

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage

If everything is there in a more cost effective solution, your arguement about the 3.7Million, then it makes sense to get rid of marriage.

Quote:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined

No they won't be sidelined. Nothing is forcing those married as man and woman to divorce and remarry in any other arrangement. And as homosexuals are the minority in society the vast majority of marriages will still be traditional.

So yeah cost is the only issue, if that even is an issue.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Mar-2012 at 01:49 AM.

@Nimrod (plus every one else! this is a reply to post #54 & my last post on the topic)

------ doh, I was so dopey, when I saw Nimrods post, that I thought it was addressed to me not BigD sorry all! but still my last post on this ------

That is a lot to reply to! Thanks for making the effort to really read it all. I will now do my best, although after replying to this I with probably not bother participating, in this threat or else I will have to take time off work!! Here goes, I hope this helps you & others understand my thoughts. I will leave others to make their own minds up. Its been interesting hearing all the views. Cheers

1. When a law it changed it is much more likely to be amended or changed again. Law builds on laws. It's highly unlikely that a few months after the law changed it will be altered to allow polygamy, but over time that's another question.

2. If your talking about homosexual discrimination due to having civil partnerships rather than marriage, then as already stated there simply isn't unless your being pedantic about some very minor legal differences (which more than likely will get amended soon). See post 42 & 43 for an example of how people really are convinced the civil partnerships are some how second class, compared to marriage, but aren't. On a side note this misconception is the primary reason given in the consultation document for this change, in the name of equality.

3. First, some regular churchgoers are homosexuals & some of them are openly gay! If you read what I put up, I gave an example of Christopher Biggins, & openly gay man that opposes this change. On a personal note a lesbian friend of mine disagrees with this too. A recent census was conducted in 2005, it was discovered that only 6.3 % of the population, some 3.2 million, were regular churchgoers see: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8970031/The-return-to-religion.html. The governments, estimates that 5% of the U.K. population are gay.

4. Reasons are a) that it will potentially cost billions, not just the 3.7 million I stated in the titles (see point 5 of post 25). B) There are already civil partnerships. C) There are homosexuals in civil partnerships who do not agree with it. Sadly divorce happens & I know all about what problems that causes, from my brothers break up. I hope you don't disagree that marriage should be for life; unfortunately these days with the easing of the divorce laws some give up when they could of worked through things, that was the point.

5. We are all effected by others life styles & values, often more than we realize.

6. I agree with all you have said there but it is still a unique biologically complementary relationship. It's the type of relationship that makes it unique, (including biologically complementary aspect).

7. I will agree to differ with you on that one.

8. Should this become law it with lead to the teaching of same sex marriage in schools. For some, their sexuality is not as fixed as others & this kind of education could confuse them further. Some parents wouldn't appreciate this being taught to their children, but their rights may be ignored eventually in the pursuit of 'equality'. Unfortunately anyone who says anything that does not appear to be pro gay rights tends to be met with those kinds of accusations. If referring to me personally, I have several gay friends.. well only two actual friends, but I know about ten others gay people through work & I get on well with all of them apart from one (I'm not the only one that finds her difficult!). My first friendships with 'out' homosexuals was at school aged 14, back in the day when it wasn't cool to appear gay friendly, so its been quite ironic some of the comments here!

9. I don't think I need to answer that one.

10. The church, from what I understand does a huge amount of good in society, to help the vulnerable & needy & despite the impression give by the media is very non-discriminatory. Nearly all negative stuff relates to so called gay rights. The church reaches out to drug addicts, prostitute, down & outs & children; Oh wait there not allowed to help so many children now because of a gay ‘rites’ issues i.e. catholic adoption agencies closing remember that one, but that's another story.

Last edited by Tpod on 28-Mar-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Last edited by Tpod on 28-Mar-2012 at 11:43 AM.
Last edited by Tpod on 28-Mar-2012 at 11:41 AM.
Last edited by Tpod on 28-Mar-2012 at 09:45 AM.
Last edited by Tpod on 28-Mar-2012 at 09:45 AM.

_________________
A1200+Mediator+Voodoo3+040+130mbRAM+0S3.9
A2000+Supra28mhz+9mbRAM+OS3.2.2, CD32 & WinUAE

@BigD

Quote:

1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman

Marriage is historically not limited to the exclusion of two. Many societies, and documented in the Bible, approved of 1 man and many women. As for the government to redefine marriage - if the gov is 'if by and for the people' it's the people who are redefining marriage.

There are similar parallels with other historic norms. For example womens had close to no rights, in some cultures slaves had more, and now in the Western World women's rights are nearly the same as men's rights. Another example is slavery has a long and rich historic practice. Using your wordings we can see that governments redefined the rights of women and eliminated slavery. Was that wrong too?

Quote:

2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships

If the legal rights are the exact same, as you claim, then it makes sense to remove marriage and only have partnership OR vice versa. Then naturally throughout the future of law making they'll always have the exact same legal rights.

My personal perference. Is the Gov will have Partnerships which establish legal pairings. The Church would have Marriage which would be a 'divine' establishment of whatever people believe the divine can establish. As the US is not derived from a godhead I think this makes good sense here.

Quote:

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic

This debate has been going on for decades. This is hardly without consultation.

Quote:

4.Equality does not mean uniformity

The items you listed here are established legally due to age of adulthood or ability, be an awesome swimmer. Same sex couples would confirm to the requirements of marriage as those are determined by law. As the law is written today, you're right. Once the law is changed, you're wrong.

Quote:

5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society

In the US divorces and single partenting is about 50% of our society. In many studies dual parenting does provide a better outcome than divorce. So perhaps we should simply outlaw divorce. Oh and don't forget the time when we thought black slaves were incapable of raising their own kids so we took them away and sold the kids immediatley to improve the condition of both slave parent and slave child...

Quote:

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship

Marriages exist for more reasons than procreation. The 'have babies' logic would mean we should demand divorce for couples that no longer are producing or rearing children. I'm sure your Grandparents would love a divorce.

Quote:

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive

I disagree - those 3K laws already say marriage so why would they have to be changed? They wouldn't you change 'Marriage' to mean same-sex or opposite sex couples and those other Marriage laws apply as written as it's a contract between spouseS.

Quote:

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage

yes Schools are forced to teach slavery is outlawed and not only teach women are equal but enforce going to school with women. Society changes and getting rid of such bigotry displayed here is good.

Quote:

9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage

Aka Slippery Slope fallacy

Quote:

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination

Churches used to run society. That'd be the period called the Dark Ages. We're out of that and the Churches no longer run society nor should they be allowed to be. We force Satanist churches to not kill people for human sacrifices. Churches no longer support slavery and other 'old world' views. So even within a church I'd argue moral relativism is used to keep the church coffers full. Afterall God is all powerful except he can't seem to print money.