Same sex marriage?

[mesaysi]

What are your thoughts on same sex marriage?

[filippo lippi]

It's fine by me. What do you think?

[ZERO]

We only live once. People have to make the most of this life.
If it makes them happy, good. I have no problem with it.

[mesaysi]

It's fine by me. What do you think?

I love the idea of anyone getting married to someone they love.

[brianp]

What are your thoughts on same sex marriage?

Fine - if folks want a formal acknowledgment of their relationship, what does it matter if they are the same sex? I don't like this "Civil Partnership" nonsense that we have in the UK - it has the same legal status as marriage so why won't they call it "Marriage" ?

[Fiona]

More than that, Brianp: I really resent that that partnership is only available to same sex couples. Marriage carries so much baggage that I would not touch it with someone else's bargepole. I would like to have the option of a formal recognition that does not have all that rubbish attached. Yet to appease some religious zealots it is not open to me

[brianp]

More than that, Brianp: I really resent that that partnership is only available to same sex couples. Marriage carries so much baggage that I would not touch it with someone else's bargepole. I would like to have the option of a formal recognition that does not have all that rubbish attached. Yet to appease some religious zealots it is not open to me

I'm not so sure I understand you. What 'baggage'? Do you mean religion? Marriage doesn't necessarily have religious connotations - I married my wife in a civil ceremony conducted by a Deputy Superintendent Registrar. There were no religious aspects to the ceremony whatsoever, indeed none were allowed by law - even religious music was prohibited.

If two people register a "Civil Partnership" and opt for a ceremony the rules and process are virtually identical to those for civil marriage except that the word "marriage" isn't used. My point was that if the rules, process and legal implications are the same then the same word should be used to describe the relationship. 'Marriage' is the traditional word for the relationship so it should be used for both mixed and same sex versions.

And on your point, why on earth would you want to have a "civil partnership" between a man and a woman when a "civil marriage" confers the same rights and responsibilities - no more and no less.

[bobdezon]

I think if you love someone enough to want to be married to them, it wouldnt matter if they were same sex or not. It doesnt bother me in the slightest. If god didnt agree he wouldnt make people gay would he? (if you believe in a god etc) If god does exist he must be making the gay people he seems to object to. Not very infalliable is it?

[Julia]

I have to say that, bearing in mind the failure rate of marriage, I really don't see its attraction for anybody, gay or straight. But then I'm a middle-aged confirmed spinster living with a cat.

[Mongrel]

I have to say that, bearing in mind the failure rate of marriage, I really don't see its attraction for anybody, gay or straight. But then I'm a middle-aged confirmed spinster living with a cat.

I've found cats are more demanding

[Fiona]

@ Brianp. In practical terms the civil marriage is largely the same.Nevertheless the perception of "marriage" is still tied to the historic view of gender relations and although that might not be rational it does have some of the implications which derive from the religious background. I do not say it should have or that is does for everybody. But just as an example many women are still expected to give up their name on marriage whether civil or religious. As Walt Whitman said "did you think my name was just a collection of syllables?".

I know this is not compulsory I only mention it to show that the civil marriage is not free of such notions in practice. And for that reason i would prefer to have the option of a new institution like the civil partnership. I completely agree it should be open to same and mixed sex couples. Just ditch the word marriage, maybe?

[brianp]

@ Brianp. In practical terms the civil marriage is largely the same.Nevertheless the perception of "marriage" is still tied to the historic view of gender relations and although that might not be rational it does have some of the implications which derive from the religious background. I do not say it should have or that is does for everybody. But just as an example many women are still expected to give up their name on marriage whether civil or religious. As Walt Whitman said "did you think my name was just a collection of syllables?".

I know this is not compulsory I only mention it to show that the civil marriage is not free of such notions in practice. And for that reason i would prefer to have the option of a new institution like the civil partnership. I completely agree it should be open to same and mixed sex couples. Just ditch the word marriage, maybe?

But this is only your perception of marriage - in my family three of my four pairs of gt grandparents married in civil ceremonies, so we don't really associate marriage with religion. Also several of my close relatives decided to retain the female's surname on marriage, mostly because the females in question were already established in professions when they married. One of my cousin's lad's went one better, he adopted his wife's surname on marriage because he didn't like his own - his name was quite literally "Mudd". So we don't really expect females to change their names either.

You may associate marriage with religion and link it with certain expectations like the female's change of surname - but legally marriage is simply a contract between two people which gives them certain rights in law, and that is all that should have been considered when it was decided to give gay couples a similar institution.

Surely it would have been much better to have taken that long-established institution - marriage - and allow same-sex couples to partake? Introducing a whole new concept of "civil partnership", while going some way to address the legal discrimination inflicted on gay couples, doesn't quite cut it; they are still treated differently from the rest of us, so discrimination still exists. Why shouldn't gays be allowed exactly the same recognition of their long-term commitment as non-gays?

[seren]

I agree with it and I think it should be mandatory for all.

[Fiona]

@ brianp. It is interesting what happened in your family but it is not very usual, I submit

And do not misunderstand me: it is not that I associate marriage with religion but rather with an independent (though intertwined) tradition of females as chattels. That is the baggage marriage carries and it is deep in our culture. You say that legally it is nothing more than a contract, and this is correct as far as it goes: if it were the whole story it would not have been reasonable to make the distinction for gay couples which has in fact been made. I think that rather tends to support my view that there is rather more to the institution in practice than you admit. I do agree that both same sex and mixed sex partnerships should be identical I just want to abolish marriage and replace it with a more respectable contract which is not tainted in that way. I am not sure if that will make sense to you, but it is very real to me.

[DrS]

To me, marriage is a formal and public ceremony demonstrating a couple's committment, and religious trappings are unnecessary, and irrelevant. As such, I don't see any reason why any couple, regardless of their sex, shouldn't "get married", with whatever trappings, or lack of, that they choose.