Indifference to equality in civil partnership.

[Leonard James]

Here's a rather sad reminder of how bigoted some people can be.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/01/20/australia-refuses-to-recognise-marriage-of-gay-man-who-died-on-his-honeymoon/

[Shaker]

Bigotry I exect from the usual witless suspects, but the insinuation or implication that there's a hierarchy of really real as opposed to less real (or, presumably, unreal) marriages, where those on the lower rung are deemed to be somehow spurious, fake, imitation versions of a genuine article, leaves me in the position that I am unable to say what I actually think since I like it here and although Gordon has seemingly endless patience and has given me an inordinate amount of rope in the past, even he would have to put his foot down at some stage 

[SusanDoris]

I very much hope that the couple at present going to court to be able to have a civil partnership as a heterosexual couple will succeed and that the law is altered to make it so for all who choose to do that.

Mind you the best step would be to leave God out everywhere. That would be progress indeed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I very much hope that the couple at present going to court to be able to have a civil partnership as a heterosexual couple will succeed and that the law is altered to make it so for all who choose to do that.

Yes I saw this in the paper today and I agree - it would be good for them to win their case and expedite a change to the law. I doubt actually that the current government disagrees on principle with extending civil partnerships - the lack of action is down to there being other priorities and a push from the courts might force the issue.

[Rhiannon]

Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow.  If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.

You do talk a load of bollocks. Fortunately the one with the delusion about marriage is you. Your beliefs are dying out and will soon be irrelevant. Real marriages are those where two people love each other. I wonder if you even know what that means.

[ProfessorDavey]

You do talk a load of bollocks. Fortunately the one with the delusion about marriage is you. Your beliefs are dying out and will soon be irrelevant. Real marriages are those where two people love each other. I wonder if you even know what that means.

I agree he is talking bollocks.

But I'd say that real marriages are ones that meet the legal requirements as set out in UK law that covers marriage. If it doesn't meet those legal requirements there is no marriage - if it does there is - simple.

[Shaker]

I agree he is talking bollocks.

But I'd say that real marriages are ones that meet the legal requirements as set out in UK law that covers marriage. If it doesn't meet those legal requirements there is no marriage - if it does there is - simple.

Then there's the personal element - far harder to define or categorise, obviously, I realise that. Two people can be legally married but can be emotionally turned off each other or emotionally invested elsewhere, in one or both cases. Parties (usually two, but I suppose it could be more) who love, care for and support each other and want to entwine lives and share experiences for however long that may be - that makes a real marriage as far as I'm concerned. I've asked for Hope's definition of what he thinks a real marriage is but I don't expect him to answer. He doesn't exactly have a stellar record of answering questions put to him about his assertions, after all.

[Nearly Sane]

Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow.  If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.

I always wondered what the polished turds that Vlad likes so much were. You and your post would seem to be one. It's like cymruddinion in a cheap suit.

[Rhiannon]

Then there's the personal element - far harder to define or categorise, obviously, I realise that. Two people can be legally married but can be emotionally turned off each other or emotionally invested elsewhere, in one or both cases. Parties (usually two, but I suppose it could be more) who love, care for and support each other and want to entwine lives and share experiences for however long that may be - that makes a real marriage as far as I'm concerned. I've asked for Hope's definition of what he thinks a real marriage is but I don't expect him to answer. He doesn't exactly have a stellar record of answering questions put to him about his assertions, after all.

I agree. A legally defined marriage can still not be 'real' in the sense that it isn't a sharing of support, interests, time and love.

[Aruntraveller]

It's like cymruddinion in a cheap suit.

Not sure about that - more like Cymru in an expensive suit that is designed to hide and flatter the hideous body within.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure about that - more like Cymru in an expensive suit that is designed to hide and flatter the hideous body within.

I don't think anything is hidden. Just tries to have the thin veneer of respectability, but still stinks of foetid hatred.

[Aruntraveller]

I don't think anything is hidden. Just tries to have the thin veneer of respectability, but still stinks of foetid hatred.

Maybe not hidden exactly - but a certain amount of obfuscation occurs due to convoluted use of the English language.

As to your other points - yep.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree. A legally defined marriage can still not be 'real' in the sense that it isn't a sharing of support, interests, time and love.

But you can have all those elements without there being a marriage - lots of people have relationships of that type without being married.

So perhaps the legal elements are the starting point - without these there is no marriage regardless of the nature of the relationship. And we can presume that the vows made as part of a legal marriage ceremony (if given truthfully) indicate that the other relationship elements are in place too. Over time the relationship may change to a point where the key components are lost and I guess this would be sufficient (were the couple to chose) for them to apply for a divorce - and if they do the 'legal' aspect would catch up with the relationship aspect.

[Rhiannon]

But you can have all those elements without there being a marriage - lots of people have relationships of that type without being married.

So perhaps the legal elements are the starting point - without these there is no marriage regardless of the nature of the relationship. And we can presume that the vows made as part of a legal marriage ceremony (if given truthfully) indicate that the other relationship elements are in place too. Over time the relationship may change to a point where the key components are lost and I guess this would be sufficient (were the couple to chose) for them to apply for a divorce - and if they do the 'legal' aspect would catch up with the relationship aspect.

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm going through a divorce myself from a marriage that hasn't been 'real' for a very long time, although it's still (just) a legal one.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm going through a divorce myself from a marriage that hasn't been 'real' for a very long time, although it's still (just) a legal one.

Sorry to hear that.

[Rhiannon]

Sorry to hear that.

Thanks, PD.

[Shaker]

This thread is being left severely alone by Hopeless, isn't it?

[Gordon]

This thread is being left severely alone by Hopeless, isn't it?

I mentioned it in a reply to him elsewhere so it will be interesting to see if the pops in here to explain himself - or not.

[Shaker]

What's to explain that we didn't know already?

[Brownie]

Yes I saw this in the paper today and I agree - it would be good for them to win their case and expedite a change to the law. I doubt actually that the current government disagrees on principle with extending civil partnerships - the lack of action is down to there being other priorities and a push from the courts might force the issue.

I agree with you and with the poster above you. There is a good case for two friends of the opposite sex, who have no romantic connection but  who live together, share resources etc, having a civil partnership.  It could be something as simple as having to sign legal documents in front of witnesses, not necessarily at the Registrar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And who exactly is the arbiter of the 'working definition' Vlad - or is this simply something you have made up.

Oh of course marriage was always thought of as between people of opposite and the same sex......Well....... actually the same sex aspect is a recent thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.

That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.

[Shaker]

While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.

That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.

They might, if they even exist.

You purport to.

I don't.

So who are they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Glad to see that fundamental dishonesty you strive to hide continues to shine through. It hasn't been 'extended', it's been changed, as it has been changed many, many times over history, before the Christians adopted it and since.

Suck it up, buttercup, it's not your institution.

O.

Oh so it's an antitheist institution like ''weaponising'' same sex marriage under the pretext of ''equality''.

[Rhiannon]

While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.

That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.

Another Christian on this thread talking bollocks. Weird.