Civil partners still cannot marry today

ooops , how did clegg it his job again...

Gays will never be able to marry in the eyes of god.

They will be able to marry in church, maybe with a Padre doing the biz, but if religious people really do believe god doesn't want it then god will just ignore it all, surely??

BigAndy9 wrote:Gays will never be able to marry in the eyes of god.

They will be able to marry in church, maybe with a Padre doing the biz, but if religious people really do believe god doesn't want it then god will just ignore it all, surely??

I'm not sure how many gays confess to be Christians but if they don't believe why do they want to be married in the eyes of God...  

I don't understand this,maybe someone religious will enlighten me.

Why can't a same sex couple get married?  

If they love each other and want to be faithful and devoted why can't they be married as straight people can?

Some religious groups do allow gay marriage; so from a Quaker pov a gay couple is married in the eyes of God; the Methodists are also discussing this.

Personally I don't care to be married in the eyes of God anymore than in the eyes of Gandalf or the Easter Bunny

I think however the government recently made it so those in CPs can indeed get married

FluffyBunny wrote:I don't understand this,maybe someone religious will enlighten me.

Why can't a same sex couple get married?  

If they love each other and want to be faithful and devoted why can't they be married as straight people can?

I am not religious but i am a man of faith, it is against God's word for man to be with man or woman with woman for that matter, that is why anyone following the bible would not consider marrying them...

boring

they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

it doesn't seem that earth shattering does it nad not being next of kin while it's sorted, it shouldn't take that long any way...

GIG, yours isn't the only faith in town you know, many people who follow this god or that god believe their god has no issue with thus. Now to me they all believe in total drivel like yourself, but that doesn't mean there are such people who believe as such.

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

That is their gripe......................  They want to marry now !!

yet all others have to divorce

gerber wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

That is their gripe......................  They want to marry now !!

yet all others have to divorce

it's unusual for gays to demand extra rights that others don't have...

Eilzel wrote:GIG, yours isn't the only faith in town you know, many people who follow this god or that god believe their god has no issue with thus. Now to me they all believe in total drivel like yourself, but that doesn't mean there are such people who believe as such.

Its good to have an opinion isn't it Lez , freedom of speech and all that   

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

gerber wrote:


That is their gripe......................  They want to marry now !!

yet all others have to divorce

it's unusual for gays to demand extra rights that others don't have...

lol   

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

I think it's the fact that for gay couples, civil partnerships have always served as an ersatz marriage. I too would be wondering why I couldn't just get the "real thing" without having to go through a big procedure ...

Do straight couples get civil partnerships in the U.K.? And if so, why?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

I think it's the fact that for gay couples, civil partnerships have always served as an ersatz marriage. I too would be wondering why I couldn't just get the "real thing" without having to go through a big procedure ...

Do straight couples get civil partnerships in the U.K.? And if so, why?

No they cannot; though I think there is consultation over this at the moment. To be honest they should be done away with; they were never more than a compromise anyway. Those in CPs should simply be able to have them converted in law.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

gerber wrote:


That is their gripe......................  They want to marry now !!

yet all others have to divorce

it's unusual for gays to demand extra rights that others don't have...

tee hee

smelly_bandit wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

gerber wrote:


That is their gripe......................  They want to marry now !!

yet all others have to divorce

it's unusual for gays to demand extra rights that others don't have...

tee hee

OK, assholes -- what "extra rights that others don't have" have gay people "demanded" that they have?

Don't overheat your pea-brains, now ...

Eilzel wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

I think it's the fact that for gay couples, civil partnerships have always served as an ersatz marriage. I too would be wondering why I couldn't just get the "real thing" without having to go through a big procedure ...

Do straight couples get civil partnerships in the U.K.? And if so, why?

No they cannot; though I think there is consultation over this at the moment. To be honest they should be done away with; they were never more than a compromise anyway. Those in CPs should simply be able to have them converted in law.

Exactly, I'm sure the vast majority of gay people in civil partnerships did it because marriage was not an option.

If straight people aren't living in civil partnerships, than requiring gay people who are to first "divorce" before they can marry is not treating them equally. Obviously ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:they will just have to get divorced then and then get married , can't see the point really

I think it's the fact that for gay couples, civil partnerships have always served as an ersatz marriage. I too would be wondering why I couldn't just get the "real thing" without having to go through a big procedure ...

Do straight couples get civil partnerships in the U.K.? And if so, why?

Don't know much about any of it and to be honest it doesn't affect me , but i do think it should be the decision of the vicar / Pastor whether or not they will marry them , i know for a fact our Pastor will not marry gay couples.

goede nacht mijn vriend, slaap goed

What is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage? Genuine question, I don't know? Is it just the church service?

There is no church service, the church has been left out of this and not required to hold same sex marriages.   I think it's the fact that same sex marriages will have the same wording as registry office marriages have always had.  Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

Sassy wrote:There is no church service, the church has been left out of this and not required to hold same sex marriages.   I think it's the fact that same sex marriages will have the same wording as registry office marriages have always had.  Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

Ah Ok Sassy thank you, shows what I know!

I just wondered if there were say, financial implications of not being married but in a civil partnership (ie tax, pensions etc)

I did hear on the news earlier that its a legal glitch anyway, and that by the end of the year if you are in a CP you will just be able to get married. Don't know if that's true or not!

I think the legal bit is the same (think lol). It's basically so their relationship is no different to anyone else's. Think they said that people will be able to convert their CPs to marriage, which seems sensible.

Mind you, most people are just living together anyway lol

harvesmom wrote:

Sassy wrote:There is no church service, the church has been left out of this and not required to hold same sex marriages.   I think it's the fact that same sex marriages will have the same wording as registry office marriages have always had.  Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

Ah Ok Sassy thank you, shows what I know!

I just wondered if there were say, financial implications of not being married but in a civil partnership (ie tax, pensions etc)

I did hear on the news earlier that its a legal glitch anyway, and that by the end of the year if you are in a CP you will just be able to get married. Don't know if that's true or not!

Good evening..... 

So they say.....  Not thought out, legal glitch....... Bull888t...............  They cannot suddenly change the laws of the land to represent a minority ..............  Are trying  - posted earlier to the degrees they are  ascending to...........  Amazing no one knew and why......  it was all done when the flood were at there peak and the Dawlish Sea wall collapsed.  I kid you not.  Check out the post  something re Kings.............  I did today, and read......

VOD(original) wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I think it's the fact that for gay couples, civil partnerships have always served as an ersatz marriage. I too would be wondering why I couldn't just get the "real thing" without having to go through a big procedure ...

Do straight couples get civil partnerships in the U.K.? And if so, why?

Don't know much about any of it and to be honest  it doesn't affect me , but i do think it should be the decision of the vicar / Pastor whether or not they will marry them , i know for a fact our Pastor will not marry gay couples.

at the moment but it only a matter of time before it gets pushed further and further so no one can refuse .... the militants won't stop here that's for sure..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:

Don't know much about any of it and to be honest  it doesn't affect me , but i do think it should be the decision of the vicar / Pastor whether or not they will marry them , i know for a fact our Pastor will not marry gay couples.

at the moment but it only a matter of time before it gets pushed further and further so no one can refuse .... the militants won't stop here that's for sure..

Do you ever stop being so paranoid? It makes you a very unpleasant person   

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:

Don't know much about any of it and to be honest  it doesn't affect me , but i do think it should be the decision of the vicar / Pastor whether or not they will marry them , i know for a fact our Pastor will not marry gay couples.

at the moment but it only a matter of time before it gets pushed further and further so no one can refuse .... the militants won't stop here that's for sure..

Further?

Gay marriage bill was to obtain equal rights for homosexuals to marry, not supersede those rights but obtain the same level of rights you have enjoyed for years, where they have not.
Again Christianity not even religion invented marriage, they just adapted marriage to suit their faiths.
You do not even have to go to church to get married, there is such a thing as a registry office.
What I do find interesting is of the churches that choose to not perform a gay marriage, when Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics, makes their stance unchristian. What makes this even more hypocritical, is they forgive millions daily in confessions ( even murderers, rapists etc) and do not deny millions (including all criminals) into their churches for constantly sinning but have themselves decided that homosexuality is thus an unforgivable sin, which goes against again fundamental Christian ethics of Compassion, Jesus again taught compassion and forgiveness, with again as I am constantly told that all sins are forgiven, because he died to take away these sins. He never also stated this was an unforgivable sin as we already know what these are as is claimed to have spoken them. Thus as seen some Christians are going against the whole bases of their faith, what Jesus taught on forgiveness and compassion. It is not just about believing, but believing in Jesus as a whole, because if you do not show or have the same compassion and forgiveness that Jesus did, then you truly do not believe in him, because to believe in him, is to stand by all he taught.

So there is no justification for any Church that does deny this.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

tee hee

OK, assholes -- what "extra rights that others don't have" have gay people "demanded" that they have?

Don't overheat your pea-brains, now ...

Ben, why are you turning in to a cheap version of Lone Wolf?

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

at the moment but it only a matter of time before it gets pushed further and further so no one can refuse .... the militants won't stop here that's for sure..

Do you ever stop being so paranoid? It makes you a very unpleasant person   

I agree with my husband on this Lez and i don't think it has anything to do with personality my husband was saying what he thought and nothing more .

VOD(original) wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Do you ever stop being so paranoid? It makes you a very unpleasant person   

I agree with my husband on this Lez and i don't think it has anything to do with personality my husband was saying what he thought and nothing more .

He says this all the time; it is deeply presumptive and paranoid- that is what I think and nothing more   

Lez we all stand firm in our beliefs  ::D:: 

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

at the moment but it only a matter of time before it gets pushed further and further so no one can refuse .... the militants won't stop here that's for sure..

Do you ever stop being so paranoid? It makes you a very unpleasant person   

it's not paranoia, it will clearly continue, it is the next obvious step...  

VOD and GIG don't think gay people want to marry because they want to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love. They think gay people just want to abuse Christians and order them around, and that happiness and love has nothing to do with their weddings.

Ben_Reilly wrote:VOD and GIG don't think gay people want to marry because they want to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love. They think gay people just want to abuse Christians and order them around, and that happiness and love has nothing to do with their weddings.

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

Eilzel wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:VOD and GIG don't think gay people want to marry because they want to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love. They think gay people just want to abuse Christians and order them around, and that happiness and love has nothing to do with their weddings.

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

I think it also shows how they don't understand or recognize the basic humanity of gay people. You have to be deeply invested into dehumanizing a group of people to not be able to understand that they seek the same sort of happiness and togetherness as everyone else.

You're absolutely right about what they're getting out of their religion. It's making them carry hate they shouldn't have to carry, and I can't imagine that's healthy   

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

I think it also shows how they don't understand or recognize the basic humanity of gay people. You have to be deeply invested into dehumanizing a group of people to not be able to understand that they seek the same sort of happiness and togetherness as everyone else.

You're absolutely right about what they're getting out of their religion. It's making them carry hate they shouldn't have to carry, and I can't imagine that's healthy   

Well now you're deciding what makes people happy too - or what should make them happy.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

tee hee

OK, assholes -- what "extra rights that others don't have" have gay people "demanded" that they have?

Don't overheat your pea-brains, now ...

The right to be free from criticism

And the right to accuse anyone who does criticise or disagree a homophobe

Eilzel wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:VOD and GIG don't think gay people want to marry because they want to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love. They think gay people just want to abuse Christians and order them around, and that happiness and love has nothing to do with their weddings.

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

I think your getting all worked up you and Ben because I don't see this as the celebration you see it as, why should i pretend to be ecstatic over something that doesn't affect me , I am married I had a wonderful white wedding in a church in the eyes of God  ::D:: 

You seem to be getting upset that I won't agree with you , I did say that I would vote for same sex marriages if it didn't mean forcing my faith to accept the wedding in the church because I know it goes against God . You asked me how i would vote and i told you that should tell you that i am not against same sex couples being married but just not forcing on my faith .

There is not an ounce of bitterness in my life Lez you assume because i disagree with something i must be bitter , i think you are showing bitterness and hatred towards me and my faith and resent the fact i won't give into bullying because that's what you and Ben are basically doing your attempting to bully me into changing views , well my views are very clear and so are my husband's views on this . Marry by all means but don't force my faith to accept it as the norm because in the eyes of my God it is not normal. Your never going to change the word of God because his word is final and you and Ben can say there isn't a God until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing .

Peace be with you

VOD(original) wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

I think your getting all worked up you and Ben because I don't see this as the celebration you see it as, why should i pretend to be ecstatic over something that doesn't affect me , I am married I had a wonderful white wedding in a church in the eyes of God  ::D:: 

You seem to be getting upset that I won't agree with you , I did say that I would vote for same sex marriages if it didn't mean forcing my faith to accept the wedding in the church because I know it goes against God . You asked me how i would vote and i told you that should tell you that i am not against same sex couples being married but just not forcing on my faith .

There is not an ounce of bitterness in my life Lez you assume because i disagree with something i must be bitter , i think you are showing bitterness and hatred towards me and my faith and resent the fact i won't give into bullying because that's what you and Ben are basically doing your attempting to bully me into changing views , well my views are very clear and so are my husband's views on this . Marry by all means but don't force my faith to accept it as the norm because in the eyes of my God it is not normal. Your never going to change the word of God because his word is final and you and Ben can say there isn't a God until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing .

Peace be with you

Interesting so as a Born again Christian you now speak for all Christians.
Actually your faith has changed many times through progression, whee it has always tried to hinder progression, even more so with women and still does today with women in the form of ordaining women to serve your deity. You are right we do not have to change your perception, but your views can also leave you behind the majority of society, because you also hold onto one command of the old testament whilst ignoring others, showing the complete contradiction by some Christians. The last part is very important because again for example I do not know many Christians that back the view children should be put to death for insulting their parents. Thus if they do not back commands like this, then it stands to reason they really have no religious justification to back the ones against homosexuality. It shows they are complete hypocrites, when as seen the badly use the religion as an excuse to think homosexuality is wrong when they real view is just a simple dislike they themselves have formed. So the question that should be really asked, is if you changed your views on other aspects of the bible, why have you not on homosexuals, because clearly the reason would not be religious?

Today, the church has wedded itself to a particular form of communal organisation – the nuclear family – as not merely socially useful but “to the exclusion of all others”. And it has allowed itself to be enslaved to a list of practices outlawed at the time humankind was transitioning from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age; the biblical Book of Leviticus forbids, in addition to homosexuality, selling land, trimming your beard, eating rabbit pie and wearing clothes made from mixed fabrics – which is bad news for evangelicals with cotton and polyester shirts.

This is how it came to pass that, on the eve of the legalisation of gay marriage, a spokesman for the Catholic Church went on the radio outlining a powerful, densely textured, legalistic philosophical justification for its opposition to gay marriage which completely omitted all reference to love. This is a deeply unattractive paradox of which both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Pope seem keenly aware. Poor Justin Welby has two irreconcilable constituencies to keep happy; he cannot say what most people in the UK want to hear from the church for fear of breaking with those in the Anglican Communion, like the church in South Sudan, which vitally needs his support on life-and-death issues of peace and poverty.

Pope Francis – who turned the papal worldview upside down by saying of gays “who am I to judge?” – constantly insists that mercy must be elevated over moralising. But he has pharisaical backwoodsmen to deal with such as the Bishop of Portsmouth who has pronounced that the city’s gay, Catholic MP should not be taking Communion at Mass. That hardly sits well from a cleric who claims to be preaching a gospel which has “God is love” at its core.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, greeted the historic decision to extend marriage to gay women and men by saying: “When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change.” Amen, or ding-dong, to that.

Paul Vallely is visiting professor of public ethics at University of Chester

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-church-has-lost-its-way-on-the-road-to-gay-marriage-9223543.html

Dibs, you show bitterness by expressing a view that a movement for others to celebrate their love with marriage is actually a sinister step in attacking the church

You don't need to be happy or ecstatic, but you needn't infer vindictiveness either.

Eilzel wrote:Dibs, you show bitterness by expressing a view that  a movement for others to celebrate their love with marriage is actually a sinister step in attacking the church

You don't need to be happy or ecstatic, but you needn't infer vindictiveness either.

les no i am not bitter i assure you , this is a debate forum therefore you will come across others do not have the same views or opinions as you and many others, that does not make me bitter it simply means i don't agree with your views .

I said in many posts back in answer to your question 'how would i have voted ' i said i would vote yes to same sex marriages but i wouldn't want them forcing it on the church as it is against what the bible says .

Some laws are passed which many are ecstatic about , others disagree and some don't simply care . You can't force someone to celebrate what you find ecstatic because same sex marriages are something you strongly believe in as you are gay, i am Christian and have strong views and beliefs because it is close to my heart .

VOD(original) wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Dibs, you show bitterness by expressing a view that  a movement for others to celebrate their love with marriage is actually a sinister step in attacking the church

You don't need to be happy or ecstatic, but you needn't infer vindictiveness either.

les no i am not bitter i assure you , this is a debate forum therefore you will come across others do not have the same views or opinions as you and many others, that does not make me bitter it simply means i don't agree with your views .

I said in many posts back in answer to your question 'how would i have voted ' i said i would vote yes to same sex marriages but i wouldn't want them forcing it on the church as it is against what the bible says .

Some laws are passed which many are ecstatic about , others disagree and some don't simply care . You can't force someone to celebrate what you find ecstatic because same sex marriages are something you strongly believe in as you are gay, i am Christian and have strong views and beliefs because it is close to my heart .

I'm not saying you can't have a view. My point is why you would suggest there is some more sinister agenda by 'the gays'- why can it not just be a good move for the majority of gay people who simply want to be married? Why must you have to find something negative?

Les what sinister agenda have i mentioned ?

VOD(original) wrote:Les what sinister agenda have i mentioned  ?

That 'the gays' want to use this to go further and force churches to go against their faith.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

tee hee

OK, assholes -- what "extra rights that others don't have" have gay people "demanded" that they have?

Don't overheat your pea-brains, now ...

The right to be free from criticism

And the right to accuse anyone who does criticise or disagree a homophobe

Bullshit, gay people are criticized all the time. And they do have the right to criticize you back (call you a bigot) but that's not an extra right you cowardly idiot ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Which just shows the extent of their bitterness, rather than seeing the recent change in law as a development celebrating love (which it is) they want to find something more sinister- the rationale is hideous, perhaps 'God' isn't giving them the happiness they claim...

I think it also shows how they don't understand or recognize the basic humanity of gay people. You have to be deeply invested into dehumanizing a group of people to not be able to understand that they seek the same sort of happiness and togetherness as everyone else.

You're absolutely right about what they're getting out of their religion. It's making them carry hate they shouldn't have to carry, and I can't imagine that's healthy   

Well now you're deciding what makes people happy too - or what should make them happy.

What a bizarre response -- I'm certainly not trying to tell other people how to be happy or what should make them happy; I'm speaking from my experience studying your species while my cloaked ship hovers in low orbit around your planet; it appears to me that pursuing loving relationships makes you humans happy (and often sad, too ...).

In my experience, being in love is happy and carrying around hate is saddening. Then again, I'm not sure which planet you're from ...