Harry's Place

Excellent piece – good to see it again.

In practice, it’s the same thing. A couple who wish to register their union have it called a marriage if they are opposite sex, and a civil partnership if they are of the same sex. There’s no practical difference other than the name and I find it very difficult to get worked up over a minor matter of terminology.

Imagine if black people were legally unable to marry but were able to have a “civil partnership” – would that be a minor matter of terminology?

” There’s no practical difference other than the name and I find it very difficult to get worked up over a minor matter of terminology.”

There are practical differences. In CPs, a surviving partner is only eligible to receive the benefit of their spouse’s pension from the date of the CP. Married couples are entitled to backdate this to the date the pensions contributions commenced.

CPS are forbidden by law of including any religious content. This doesn’t bother me, but there are religious same-sex couples I know who are deeply hurt by this.

There are also problems with international recognition, including within the EU. Spain, for example, has an inclusive marriage law and doesn’t recognise CPs because they are not marriage. The UK doesn’t recognise the marriages of same-sex couples, for exampel the Lesbian couple who are legally married in Canada.

My spouse and I have a civil partnership. It is not recognised in South Africa. We are SA citizens and entitled to get married there, but we would be breaking UK law which perversely says you cannot get married if you are in a civil partnership. The dueal stuructire of the law is unnessary from a logical point of view and causes unnecessary problems.

Besides which, it is insulting. Perhaps, as an Established Christian country, we should only call Christian marriages “marriage” and Jews, Hindus, Silhs and Muslims should only be allowed civil partnerships too. Let’s see ow far that idea gets.

‘put bluntly, rejecting what you’re not allowed to have in the fist place is a hollow gesture’

I don’t wish to appear homophobic, but this should be ‘first place’, yes?

I support Peter’s campaign fully, and agree fully with both FF & Brett.

Yes, the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry will “devalue the currency of marriage” is bollocks, but, as the saying holds (was it Popper?) a case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest.

And there are stronger cases to be made, none of which, as it happens, convince me. But I have yet to hear a proponent of gay marriage deal adequately with the question (it does not quite constitute an argument) as to how one can redefine marriage to be inclusive of same-sex partners on the basis of equality, but still to exclude marriage between multiple partners or siblings.

As I say, such arguments don’t really appeal to me, and I am pretty much on board with same sex marriage, so I ask this question more out of intellectual curiosity that anything else.

Thanks

JC

“how one can redefine marriage to be inclusive of same-sex partners on the basis of equality, but still to exclude marriage between multiple partners or siblings.”

Siblings is easily dealt with. The trouble is in-breeding, which is why one cannot marry a close relative. That said, I do support allowing long-term cohabiting sibblings to enter into a civil partnership to protect their shared home and passessions.

Marriage has generally been understood to be a romantic union between two people and I don’t see any sign that this would change, and I doubt two co-habiting siblings would want to call their relationship a “marriage”.

I don’t have a problem with polygamy. I don’t think it is the state’s business to interfere with the contractual and domsestic affairs of consenting adults. If people want to formalise their manage-a-trois, then I say let them.

Let’s all make love in London.

P.S. to the thread on sexism which is about to disappear. I read in today’s paper, The Arena, that of all women in Italy between the ages of 17 and 70, one in three has suffered real violence from men, most often within the family. Feminism has a long way to go.

With the law which would abbreviate the expiry date of trials, which Berlusconi has tailor made for himself, many of those men will get off scot-free, and who else, one wonders?

I read in today’s paper, The Arena, that of all women in Italy between the ages of 17 and 70, one in three has suffered real violence from men, most often within the family. Feminism has a long way to go.

Depends on exactly what question was asked, doesn’t it though? I could just a well say I “suffered violence from women” since my mother smacked me when I was a child…

James Campbell

Spain solved this problem neatly. Remember that Catholic country Spain? Their combined Catholic hierarchy was able to have less influence in Spain than the odd Catholic whisper in Tony Blair’s ear.

Spain just simply altered the definition of Marriage (as a civil institution) to be a relationship between two people rather than a man and a woman. (heterosexual marriage has never had to worry about siblings taking advantage of it)

Of course this required that Spain alter its constitution that it pass both houses of parliament and receive royal assent all of which was achieved remarkably easily.

Spain, Canada and South Africa now have gender free marriage.

As for other kinds of relationships such as siblings. I am all in favour of civil partnership for them such as the PACS arrangement in France. I imagine siblings might not wish to be married in any event so a social partnership recognised by law is in order.

Another alternative one much favoured in Rome and in the mediaeval period is one of adoption.

An adult should be able to adopt another adult as a sibling or son or daughter.

I should have added or heir.

Marriage is, and was originally conceived as, a religious institution.

The purpose of marriage is to foster the optimum conditions for child-rearing, the logical outcome of and consonant with a loving relationship.

Two homosexuals can never create the optimum conditions for child-rearing however ‘perfect’ their partnership might be.

There is no human ‘right’ to marriage; marriage is a privilege conferred upon men and women who ‘earn’ it.

Marriage is, and was originally conceived as, a religious institution.

Depends where you think it was “originally conceived,” In ancient Egypt there was no ceremony and polygamy was OK.

“There is no human ‘right’ to marriage; marriage is a privilege conferred upon men and women who ‘earn’ it.”

Really? And how to they ‘earn’ it?

Hossein Said:-

“Marriage is, and was originally conceived as, a religious institution.

The purpose of marriage is to foster the optimum conditions for child-rearing, the logical outcome of and consonant with a loving relationship.

Two homosexuals can never create the optimum conditions for child-rearing however ‘perfect’ their partnership might be.”

I agree with that, but was too scared to say it myself…

Brett / Mettaculture – thanks for your replies.

Brett – why should in-breeding be an issue if, as you yourself have pointed out, the idea of marriage being for raising children is a nonsense? Straight people who don’t want children or who can’t have children are, as you say, not barred from marriage. Why shouldn’t two straight siblings be barred from marriage on the grounds that they, I suppose one would say, shouldn’t have children.

(Also, I do wonder about the science behind in-breeding. I’d be interested to know how likely deformity from inter-marriage is when it occurs in only one generation. I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that it requires numerous generations of in-breeding to have an effect. Then again, I speak from a position of scientific ignorance on this point.)

On the issue of polygamy, I respect your intellectual consistency. However, I think your view pinpoints the problem with the debate over this issue. I think all too often the proponents of same-sex marriage simply dismiss any opposition as religious bigotry or hatred. Although that explains some opposition, it doesn’t address those who might feel that while they have no antagonism towards homosexuality, or even civil unions, they would (rightly or wrongly) never countenance the possibility of polygamy or sibling marriage, and feel that same-sex marriage is the first step towards their being introduced.

Sorry – correction:

Why should two straight siblings be barred from marriage on the grounds that they, I suppose one would say, shouldn’t have children.

“Why should two straight siblings be barred from marriage on the grounds that they, I suppose one would say, shouldn’t have children.”

They shouldn’t, provided they are unable to have childrem. I’ve already said I think any couple living in a domextic relationship of mutual care and commitment should be able to have a civil partnership. For the minuscule percentage of these who are romantically attached as well (providing they don’t have sex that is potentially procreative), if they want to marry, I say let them. It makes no difference to me.

But I don’t understand why anyone would want to make an issue out of incestuous heterosexual relationships all of a sudden. It strikes me as a red herring and not entirely relevant.

The purpose of marriage is to foster the optimum conditions for child-rearing

So in Hossein’s narrow-minded little world, straight couples who are infertile, or where the woman is past child-bearing age, or where one or the other partner is disabled in such a way as to make child-rearing not an option – none of these should be able to get married.

“Really? And how to they ‘earn’ it?”

A heterosexual couple ‘earn’ the privilege of marriage by devoting themselves to each other till death them do part. Those who are unwilling or unable to make such a commitment should not undermine the institution of marriage by embarking on such a journey.

“I agree with that, but was too scared to say it myself…”

Never be afraid, Stuart, to voice your opinions or to stand up for principles you believe in…even if those principles conflict with perverse requirements to celebrate ‘equality’ and diversity [or else].

“Marriage is, and was originally conceived as, a religious institution.

The purpose of marriage is to foster the optimum conditions for child-rearing, the logical outcome of and consonant with a loving relationship.

Two homosexuals can never create the optimum conditions for child-rearing however ‘perfect’ their partnership might be.

There is no human ‘right’ to marriage; marriage is a privilege conferred upon men and women who ‘earn’ it.”

Many straight people would prefer to express their commitment by civil partnership partly so their relationship has as little to do with ‘marriage’ as conceived of by people such as Hossein Miah, above, as possible.

those who might feel that while they have no antagonism towards homosexuality, or even civil unions, they would (rightly or wrongly) never countenance the possibility of polygamy or sibling marriage, and feel that same-sex marriage is the first step towards their being introduced.

I’m sure some of the same crap was spouted when black and white people first started to want to get married to each other.

James Campbell

I have to ask are your questions genuine? By appearing to play the devils advocate you are rather blithely throwing incest into the mix.

Perhaps two siblings in an incestuous relationship would like to marry but to put that issue on the issue of same sex marriage is somewhat absurd.

As far as religious Christian Marriage goes it is worth pointing out that non-procreating individuals are forbidden to marry and nonconsumated marriages both religiously and legally never existed.

Yet were religious or civil authorities to enquire into whether a legally conducted marriage was ever successfully consummated would result in mass opposition.

In numerous sexual behabiour studies rates of between 8-14% for married couples never having sex have been reported.

Equally the Church is fully within its ‘rights’ to refuse to wed disabled people who are unable to procreate, yet when the odd Catholic Bishop does refuse such a marriage there are cries of outrage.

From the point of view of Christianity and as a consequence in most of European and American legal systems marriage actually only occurs at the point of penetration (partial or complete) of the vagina of the wife by the penis of the husband.

Now this is all a short hand way of saying that clearly no-one considers marriage in those terms any more.

Even the most conservative defender of ‘traditional’ marriage sees it as a form of voluntary enduring partnership, they see it in other words in a radically modern and religiously heretical way.

So why should the ‘gays’ have to justify why they should be married when they simply want the modern package that is a set of social recognitions privileges and entitlements, long since departed from its origins.

Simply no or at the least very few heterosexuals are in anything like a traditional marriage and only wrongly assume they are when seeking to deny the same type of partnership to homosexuals.

The first step in obliging people to recognise the decoupling from religion that has in effect already occurred a century or more ago is for the state, as in France, to refuse to recognise any kind of religious Marriage.

People should be able to have what ever kind of religious marriage or ceremony they wish but civil Marriage should take place in a registry office.

Now those who oppose the idea of civil marriage can be as religiously married as they like but if they wish the state privileges and benefits that come from civil registration then they had best pop along to the local registry office.

No big deal sorted.

There is no human ‘right’ to marriage; marriage is a privilege conferred upon men and women who ‘earn’ it.

Well, there is Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

This suggests that it is an inalienable right, not something that needs to be ‘earned’. There are no caveats as to the couples ability to conceive or raise children. On this basis, if it is a universal right, to be truly universal it should also apply to same sex partnerships.

Hossein – I would be interested to hear your definition of ‘earned’ however. As a straight woman, what do I need to do? Is it merely a case of ovulating, or is there more to it than that?

Brett: “But I don’t understand why anyone would want to make an issue out of incestuous heterosexual relationships all of a sudden. It strikes me as a red herring and not entirely relevant.”

I actually agree. Instances of this kind would so rare as to be insignificant. However, what it demonstrates is that once marriage is re-defined, it is difficult to then draw the line, without it being completely arbitrary.

And most people (bigots or not) do still want to draw the line somewhere.

To be completely honest with you Brett, my whole issue stems from what I consider to be an internal inconsistency in my own view. I am in favour of same-sex marriage, but I’m not in favour of sibling marriage or polygamy. I could attempt to draw some kind of moral distinction (in-breeding in the case of siblings, female oppression in the case of polygamy) but it could only take me so far.

This is why I don’t automatically dismiss any opposition to same-sex marriage as knee-jerk religious bigotry.

A heterosexual couple ‘earn’ the privilege of marriage by devoting themselves to each other till death them do part.

Ermmm – seen the divorce stats recently?

And hetero couples state this devotion as part of the wedding ceremony, so how have they earned that right prior to this statement?

Those who are unwilling or unable to make such a commitment should not undermine the institution of marriage by embarking on such a journey.

Your homophobia’s showing.

Flaming Fairy

As I say technically in your examples they cannot have a religious marriage. And in civil law technically without consummation their marriages are not existing and could be annulled simply by a claim of non consummation.

Strangely people who don’t want homosexuals to marry get terribly shirty when you point this out.

I think to ensure the existence of a real marriage there needs to be a consummation and regular penetration and procreation inspectorate with duly empowered officers with investigatory powers (of course they must be trained in cultural sensitivity awareness so that they know how to properly interrogate say, caste Brahmins about their conjugal penetrative habits)

But mettaculture – would a bigot like Hossein really restrict marriage to fertile, younger able-bodied people? I’m guessing most likely not – it’s just queers he doesn’t want in the marriage club.

““Marriage is, and was originally conceived as, a religious institution.”

Bah, so was Christmas.

James – the vast majority of opposition to gay marriage IS knee-jerk bigotry. And why can’t a line be drawn between gay marriage and polygamous or incestuous marriage – the line was quite successfully drawn between straight marriage and polygamous/incestuous marriage.

“A heterosexual couple ‘earn’ the privilege of marriage by devoting themselves to each other till death them do part.”

I see. I was under the impression that heterosexuals got married at the *beginning* of their lives together. Now you tell me that this ‘marriage’ certificicate is some form of award they get presented with when they’re close to death. It’s all very confusing!

“Well, there is Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

When the UDHR was formulated in 1948, homosexual partnerships were inconceivable.

The wording is ambiguous enough to cite bigamy, polygamy and intra-family marriage as a ‘right’.

Homosexual acts are morally wrong and do not constitute a solid foundation for a healthy relationship or the raising or children.

Hossein – you are a bigoted moron. Please take a ticket and wait in line to get a clue and then a life.

“Homosexual acts are morally wrong” only according to your bigoted religious fantasy. Your religion’s founder had sex with a 9 year old girl (and forced pre-teen child rape-marriages persist in many backward Muslim countries) -any follower of a paedophile’s cult is in no position to lecture on the morality of consensual relations.

“and do not constitute a solid foundation for a healthy relationship or the raising or children.”

I am guessing I know more kids raised by same-sex parents than you. Most are perfectly happy, as much or more so than kids raised in more conventional homes in my experience.

As FF said, you are bigoted scum and should be thrown off a mountain, stoned or suchlike…

B xx

I tell you what, your comments towards Hossein pretty much sum it all up for me. You expect acceptance and tolerance, but bwoy you don’t want to give it, when someone’s views differ from your own, then your own hatred and bigoted ways spill out, in exactly the same way as you condemn others.

Dearie me!
Hossein -I absolutely disagree with you and find your opinion on this matter abhorrent. However, I have no desire to mete out to you the sort of punishments that religion suggests for the people that fall foul of your world view.

Hossein is entitled to his opinions, however distasteful we may find them. Suggesting he should be murdered because of them is really, as my Granny used to say, beyond the pale.

You expect acceptance and tolerance, but bwoy you don’t want to give it, when someone’s views differ from your own etc

Oh blow it out your rear. The difference between me being gay and Hossein being a bigot is that Hossein could choose not to be a bigot. That he opts to continue wallowing in ignorance and hatred means he deserves whatever he gets.

“A heterosexual couple ‘earn’ the privilege of marriage by devoting themselves to each other till death them do part.”

And if the marriage tuns into a hell then that commitment becomes a death penalty. This is often the case. See the statistics on wife beating in Italy (where I live). The divorce rate has already been mentioned.

It really depends on the people rather than the sexes. You can have wonderful gay parents and very bad hetero ones. There is every variation you can think of.

For me the most important thing between close people is the contract. Without it a gay partner can be prevented from seeing his friend on his death bed by the family. When Gerturd Stein died her family decended like vultures on Alice B.Toklas to rob her of everything they possessed together.

I was a gay parent for a some years in an American family in Paris.
The husband was often away, so I was a companion to his wife and second father to the children. I taught them music, we played music together, I read poetry to them, Goblin Market and the plays of Racine, took them for walks and to see galleries. Afterwards (excuse me) they said I was one of the best things that had happened to them in their lives.

For myself I prefer not to live in exclusively gay world but to involve all kinds of people, women, friends, Uncles and Aunts, Families, and this especially in the case of adoptions. Male and female relationships are both important.

If I had grown up hetero children I would advise them NOT to get married in a church, tho’ the ultimate decision would be up to them. I have seen so many of them go bad. Until death us depart, indeed!

I’m dead against marriages where the couple is forced to remain together until death releases them from bondage. But theri are societies in which such horrors are imposed, and to some extent that situation prevails in Italy. But the Italians enjoy lying – a healthy way out – and have their lovers, while publicly affriming the traditional values. This is gradually changing.

Stuart,

I feel no obligation to be nice to bigots or respect their views in any way, especially when they are based on metaphysical fantasy. In many Muslim countries people die at the hand of private individuals and the state because of what this bloke believes and propagates.

B

To those concerned that I was making serious death threats, the reference was ironically made to the koranic punishments traditionally meted out to gay people and other accused of sexual “crimes”, which are a disgrace in this age.

B

Oh Mettaculture – you can’t be proposing Big Brother marriages, But I think you are being ironic:

“I think to ensure the existence of a real marriage there needs to be a consummation and regular penetration and procreation inspectorate with duly empowered officers with investigatory powers (of course they must be trained in cultural sensitivity awareness so that they know how to properly interrogate say, caste Brahmins about their conjugal penetrative habits)

There is a perfectly simple way for cohabiting couples of opposite sexes to acquire the rights that this innovation’s proponents have in mind. It is called marriage. That, at least so far as the pure legalities are concerned, is what marriage is. So I’m sorry, but I don’t understand. Or is it just that civil partnerships do not need to be consummated?

I, personally, disapprove of homosexual acts and the notion of homosexual partners marrying for many reasons, but one should not infer from this view that I disapprove of or somehow, as one commenter suggested, ‘hate’ homosexuals.

I totally reject the idea that the most pivotal attribute of any human being is his sexual habits. This is exactly the sort of language that homosexual propagandists wish us to use – giving them the ammunition to claim that sexual deviancy is a genetic predisposition, much like ethnicity or gender, as opposed to a lifestyle choice based on moral debasement.

“I, personally, disapprove of homosexual acts and the notion of homosexual partners marrying for many reasons, but one should not infer from this view that I disapprove of or somehow, as one commenter suggested, ‘hate’ homosexuals.”

Well, other than pure hatred, I can’t imagine another explanation for why you’d want to tear my family apart.

“Well, other than pure hatred, I can’t imagine another explanation for why you’d want to tear my family apart.”

Brett where on earth does a comment like that come from?

It is entirely possible to believe that a lifestyle is morally wrong and not hate or want to destroy or tear apart those that practice the same.

Hossein – You are entitled to your nasty (not to mention, ridiculous) opinions, but I think you will find yourself somewhat unloved by the majority of people here.

I’ve just a seen a picture of this couple and can discern no signs of intelligent life in their faces. They’re both only 25 and obviously don’t really understand the true nature of this issue.

Ditto for Peter Tatchell

If you don’t want to get married, then DON’T GET MARRIED

There, a dissenting voice in a world of la pensée unique.

“a lifestyle choice based on moral debasement.”

Really, no-sexuality can be a spectrum of attractions to men and/or women but it is innate and never anything so trivial as a lifestyle choice (although even if it were it would be no business of mediaevelist totalitarian religious fantasists) . You really hold despicable views.

B

“It is entirely possible to believe that a lifestyle is morally wrong and not hate or want to destroy or tear apart those that practice the same.”

Nasty, fundamentalist Muslims don’t usually stop at quiet criticism of things they disapprove of when they are in countries where they can get away with it though do they Stuart?

B

“It is entirely possible to believe that a lifestyle is morally wrong and not hate or want to destroy or tear apart those that practice the same.”

If that’s your belief, you’re entitled to it. Simple. Just don’t have sex with men, Stuart. Problem solved.

But it doesn’t end there, does it? It ends with intrusive laws and the denial of legal rights. Moral “beliefs” never just stay beliefs do they? They’re translated into action, practice, policy… They effect the lives of others. They *damage* the lives of others, but perversely gain *nothing* for the people with the “moral beliefs”.

Brett I agree with you, but we seem to have got ourselves into an ever decreasing circle, with everyone feeling under attack.

I feverently believe in your right (and your community) to live as you desire and I also believe in my right (and my community) to live as I desire and I should have the freedom (legistatively and socially) to state a religious moral view on sexual ethics, as much as I support your right to picket outisde my church and wave plackards that call be a narrow minded bigot.

I don’t advocate a denial of rights for the LGBT community, however, legislation is swinging to the other extreme, whereby, any religious objection is potentially outlawed, for example in terms of employment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/churches-lift-ban-homosexual-staff

Stuart, I take the libertarian view. I think a private guest house run by evangelical Christians should be able to turn away same sex couples, that I should be able to turn down work media from them and that we should have the right to boycott each other. The law should not abridge either of our rights.

But this obviously requires quid pro quo necessarily involving legal equality for all involved.

In other words, Christian evangelists cannot expect to rage agianst gays but then sue gay magazine editors under blasphemy laws.

Totally and utterly agree Brett

“Totally and utterly agree Brett”

Well, that was easy. ;-)

The central plank in my argument against homosexual partnerships is that they erode the benefits that have accrued over a thousand years on this sceptered isle from the institution of marriage.

This country’s decline in civility is corelative to the decline of marriage. By further devaluing an institution assaulted by divorce laws, cultural relativism and the Church’s loss of confidence, we risk diminishing its singular importance even further by allowing homosexual propagandists the ‘right’ to marry.

A relationship founded on sexual deviancy is not healthy for either party; for the upbringing of children; or society as a whole.

Yeah, but people used to say the same thing about interracial relationships Hossein. Some still do!

Live and let live, eh?

To pick up on one of Brett’s points about OutRage!’s proposals for a wider, more flexible system of relationship rights and responsibilities:

Marriage and its slightly watered down version, civil partnerships, are far from ideal. Both are rather outdated models of relationship recognition.

That is why I have also argued for an entirely new system of relationship recognition and rights – not civil marriage or civil partnerships.

For many years, OutRage! and I have suggested a fresh, modern legal framework – a Civil Commitment Pact (not to replace marriage and civil partnerships but as an additional option).

A CCP would allow people to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ’significant other’ in their life. This could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, house-mate, favourite nephew or life-long best friend.

Many non-sexual friendships are just as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition.

There is no sound reason to restrict partnership rights to people in sexual relationships. That discriminates against friends who support each other, but who are not in a traditional love coupling.

Why shouldn’t two life-long best friends have legal rights similar to two lovers? The main substantive difference in the nature of their relationships is that the latter have sex and the former don’t. Why should sex be privileged over friendship?

As well as allowing people to nominate any significant person in their life, perhaps a new partnership framework could also offer flexibility and choice with regard to rights and responsibilities.

Some rights and responsibilities, such as those concerning tax contributions and social security benefits, would have to be linked together to prevent people claiming the benefits of relationship registration and avoiding the costs. Otherwise, there is no reason why two people should not be free to construct their own unique partnership agreement.

Within our society we see a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles. There are people who live together, and those who live apart. Some share their finances; others maintain financial independence. The law should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices and re ali ties. The one-size-fits-all model of relationship recognition ? exemplified by marriage – is no longer appropriate.

Any new partnership legislation should allow people to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs.

Some people may, for example, want to designate another person as their next-of-kin, but not wish to confer on that person other rights or responsibilities. The law should let them make that choice.

For more information about the Civil Commitment Pact idea, see here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/partnership/insignificantother.htm

Sounds like a rather good idea.

Homosexuality is not unnatural; the instute of marriage is, for better and worse. It is a social institution for various reasons, some of which are good ones, but when it becomes a categorical imperative, a condemnation to prison for life, it becomes a sheer perversion, from which nature – homosexuality – seeks to escape.

Stick to you holy of holies but don’t stick your religious perversions down our throats.

I am fully in favour for all declared and recorded partnerships, between any two people, to benefit from all the same rights and responsibilities. That includes siblings, cousins, same-sex couples, the lot. Bring it on. Don’t care if it’s called marriage, or civil partnership. It’s a legally recognised contract between two people who promise to take responsibility for eachother.

The state would never be able to collect another penny in inheritance tax, because we would all be able to marry an heir/ess at the end of our lives, and all our assets would then be the joint property of the spouse, and therefore exempt.

But I wouldn’t want the state to recognise any polygamous marriage. There is too much scope there for racketeering, and milking the benefits system.

And there should be no assumption of a sexual relationship, that is purely a matter for the two individuals signing the contract. If you regularly sandpaper the wife’s bum every Friday night, and you both enjoy it, but decide to leave it at that, it’s no-one else’s bloody business but your own.

If two siblings or first cousins marry and then bring a very sick or disabled child into the world, they should both be prosecuted for recklessly inflicting such suffering on an innocent party. And we should be doing that anyway.

a lifestyle choice based on moral debasement

Oh fuck off. Really – just take your holy book and fuck right off.

The conflation of genetic inheritance and sexual inclination is quite wrong.

Marriage, still the most common form of relationship between two people in the UK, provides the bedrock upon which a solid and stable civil society can be built. All the evidence suggests that children brought up by a man and his wife are happier and more likely to succeed academically and socially than their counterparts born out of wedlock.

Advocates of a more ‘relaxed’ attitude to relationships contend that marriage should be one amongst many models recognised by the state. I would argue that by recognisng the unique institution of marriage, between a man and a woman, and re-establishing the benefits conferred on a married couple, British society would again blossom.

Every time this subject comes up I am amazed by some of the attitudes displayed.
Marriage and civil partnerships should be two categories of legal contract both open to either gay or heterosexual couples. Simples.

Tatchell:

“Within our society we see a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles. There are people who live together, and those who live apart. Some share their finances; others maintain financial independence. The law should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices and re ali ties. The one-size-fits-all model of relationship recognition ? exemplified by marriage – is no longer appropriate.”

Nope. Don’t agree there. You shouldn’t be able to set up a partnership in which you are wealthy and live in a palace, and your partner is penniless in a homeless shelter. Partnership, if not based upon religion or sexual committment, has to have another keystone. It has to be legal and financial. You have an obligation to care and provide for your partner, as he/she does to care and provide for your needs.

The conflation of genetic inheritance and sexual inclination is quite wrong.

Your evidence for this assertion? Other than the wibblings of other sky pilots, that is.

This Houssein person -I’m not sure he is a person – keeps churning out his computerised message, without the slightest regard for actual people, the experiences of life, human nature in all its variety.
When you talk about gays you are not simply talking about gays but about living people. You can’t use labels like gay subsuming them as a depersonalised category and impose ideologies on them.

It reminds me of the way Jews are sometimes stuffed into one packet, when in fact there is an infinite variety of people among them.

Hossein and other homophobic morons like him are generally only ever bothered by male homosexuals. They tend to consider lesbians as either non-existent or only there to provide wank fodder for hetero men, so they’re probably OK. They also assume that being gay is solely about fucking people up the arse and nothing else. They make the bizarre claim that it is a “lifestyle choice”. Given that gay Muslims have to put up with the likes of Hossein and his other co-religionists forcing them into lying, hiding away, going through the farce of heterosexual marriages and even (in Iran) cutting their own cocks off rather than face persecution, who would “choose” that “lifestyle”?

Why the notion of homosexual marriage is wrong:

1) The introduction of homosexual marriage would lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives.

2) The devaluing of the institution of marriage, the only proven foundation for a safe, tolerant society, is the ultimate goal of homosexual propagandists who seek to redefine marriage and reconstitute it for their own immoral ends.

3) The deluge of propaganda unleashed on British citizens and their children during the years of New Labour’s culture war would be supplemented and strengthened by the de jure recognition of marriage between homosexuals; no stone would be left unturned until; no innocent mind left unpolluted until children and their parents were forced to ‘celebrate’ diversity [or else - the not-so-subtle subtext].

I repeat: homosexual inclination is not good grounds for public policy or law.

The state has no business interfering in the bedrooms of its citizens, but it is the duty of legislation to safeguard the public interest. Homosexual marriage is not in the public interest.

I think Hossein Miah is some sort of perverse Turing Test.

Homosexuals in the West can already do what they want in their own homes and their communities for over two or three decades now. No one is stopping them and if anyone tried, subtle fellows such as Brett will drag up Turing and his estrogen treatments from the 50s. Unsubtle fellows will tell us that latter day Nazis want to mark the homosexuals down with pink stars. It seems that nothing short of celebration and adulation of the homosexual life would suffice for the gay advocates. What they want is not mere tolerance, but unstinting endorsement of their lifestyle. I simply cannot understand how one can choose to be a homsexual, yet desire that adoption agencies put them in line for the adoption of children. Why don’t they just look for a person of the opposite sex?

having now read Peter Tatchell’s article on a Civil Commitment Pact I think it has a lot to recommend it. There are a variety of relationships that it would be useful to recognise and provide a legal framework for. The oft quoted siblings living together is one good example. Of course almost be definition these don’t have to be monogomous relationships so the door does open to polyamorous relationships. If not happens if you have three sisters living together?

However a Civil Commitment Pact isn’t marriage and I don’t think it should replace marriage.

It’s also wrong I feel that civil partnerships have different rights to marriage. They should be the same.

homosexual propagandists

Ah – the mark of a true bigotted arsehole. And here’s another one: –
What they want is not mere tolerance, but unstinting endorsement of their lifestyle

I don’t give a fuck what cretins like you think about my “lifestyle”, I just want the law to treat me as your equal, even though – given your homophobia – I am clearly your superior.

“What they want is not mere tolerance, but unstinting endorsement of their lifestyle.”

I wouldn’t ask *you* to endorse your favourite brand of toilet paper for fear that people might prefer constipation.

I just want the law to treat me as your equal

Heh!

It starts innocuously enough with ‘just’ and ends with a militant cabal inside the Pink Mafia forcing their revolutionary agenda on the silent majority of decent socially conservative Britons.

You are treated *equally* by the law, FF. What Hossein is trying to say is that the majority of Britons, whilst being tolerant of the depraved acts homosexuals get up to in private, neither wish a lifestyle instituted on such moral debasement to be promoted, nor have such vile behaviour receive the imprimatur of the state.

Nobody wishes to return to the days when buggery could lead to imprisonment. But, equally, nobody wants such odious habits to be advanced as somehow ‘positive’ choices for the young and impressionable.

But, equally, nobody wants such odious habits to be advanced as somehow ‘positive’ choices for the young and impressionable.

So hopefully scum like you with the odious habit of being a homophobic twunt are kept well away from children

On the sub-plot of violence against women, which is relevant to this thread, Napolitano, the President of Italy announced yesterday, that this violence is now a national emergency -red light for danger.
I only mentioned the violence in my mail above, noi the murders of wives and girlfriends which occur every few days. I’m sure Hossein would prefer this forced cage of horror to a civil union between gays. Considering this evidence it might be an idea to forbid marriage between heteros (Not to be taken literally).

Bill (plus letters and numbers) had this to say:

“Depends on exactly what question was asked, doesn’t it though? I could just a well say I “suffered violence from women” since my mother smacked me when I was a child…”

This joke is not funny, because he knows the truth very well.

I don’t think there is much point in arguing with Hossein, as his brain has already been thoroughly washed and he can only trot out the same ritual statements. The forced adherence to marriage he envisions breeds violence – more still in fundamentalist Muslim countries – and his commandments are violent in themselves.

I wouldn’t ask *you* to endorse your favourite brand of toilet paper for fear that people might prefer constipation.

Isn’t this the problem? You think that the choice between a homosexual and heterosexual orientation is as trivial as choosing between various brands of toilet paper. Its all a lifestyle choice, fine have it your way. Why impose it on the rest of us?

Ivan, no one would dream of imposing homosexuality on you.

I think Brett’s remarks about toilet paper referred to the quality of someones thinking. If you really want to, you can try writing a metaphysical poem (which uses extreme contrasts) comparing brands of toilet paper with hetero- and homosexuality.

Ivan – not only a homophobic twat but thick as shit as well. Go slither back under your damp rock.

‘I simply cannot understand how one can choose to be a homsexual, yet desire that adoption agencies put them in line for the adoption of children. Why don’t they just look for a person of the opposite sex?’ (Ivan)

I honestly don’t believe that I’m reading this in the 21st century. Nobody ‘chooses’ to be a homosexual just as nobody chooses to have green eyes. It just turns out that way and in my experience as a medical practicioner, some of the most unhappy people I have met have been those trying to ignore or supress their homosexuality because of pressure from society or family.

Brett, Flaming Fairy and others – please tell me that you don’t have to put up with attitudes such as these on a regular basis. I genuinely thought we were past this sort of crap.

Peter Thatchell and others

I briefly mentioned the French PACS agreement. No-one seems to have picked up on this legal exemplar of an already existing Civil relationship (Pacte Civil de Solidarity) passed in 1999.

The French Assembly passed this rather than a gay marriage/civil partnership act, unfortunately it does not give equal legal recognition to same sex partners that are found in French civil marriage.

It was such a cop out by the French because as they are one of the few countries that does not recognise Religious Marriage at all, all marriage in France is civil and secular, therefore to have simply extended this opposite sex civil Marriage to same sex partners would have been the simplest of legislative responses.

On the other hand PACS does recognise other kinds of non sexual relationships (though somewhat fewer rights than marriage) it represents the first actual legal example of a functioning system of legal recognition for different kinds of emotionally and financially interdependent relationships by which people actually live their lives.

http://paris.angloinfo.com/countries/france/pacs.asp

Brett, Flaming Fairy and others – please tell me that you don’t have to put up with attitudes such as these on a regular basis.

Not in my offline life, no, but I do very often come across slime like Hossein and Ivan online.

“Brett, Flaming Fairy and others – please tell me that you don’t have to put up with attitudes such as these on a regular basis. I genuinely thought we were past this sort of crap.”

I am one of the others. I think I may have been extraordinarily, as I can hardly remember any instances at all of being victimised. I think it does also have something to do with the fact that I am absolutely unafraid. In all my jobs, in my building, in my area of town, everyone knows I am gay and they are fond of me. I have pretend boyfriends in almost every trattoria, bar, shop, supermarket and they love the game.

Sometimes I tell myself I must behave with the dignity of my age, but then I realise that my “boyfriends” would be disappointed.

This morning I’m going for a coffee with a friend in a café where the manager, Antonio, is my idol. (He has been happily married for 15 years and has children). My admiration came out accidentally, ie.a waitress spilled the beans. When I next went into the bar, Antonio said to all the waiters, “Look who’s here! Our Felix!” Once I sat outside so as to hold back a bit, but the waitress came out and said, “Come in Felix. Antonio wants to greet you.” He gives me a discount.

I have many such charming anecdotes. Perhaps just one more. I wanted to buy flowers at the market downstairs from my flat. Two gorgeous boys serving. I saw them whispering and giving me funny looks and the subject matter was obvious. When they came to serve me, I said, “What I’d really like is to buy this boy with the curly black hair.” They went away – I thought to serve other customers – but they came back and loaded me with four huge bunches of flowers and refused any payment.

Italian young men with curly black hair…sorry I got lost for the minute there…

Well this conversation (especially with Brett – cheers) has caused to me to try to define what I believe (again) and much to my shame I have only just discovered Christian libertarianism in my investigations.

What a relief to get myself a nice new shiny label, I feel much relieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism