Chindie Posted May 20, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2013 On a related note, can somebody tell me the difference - if any - between a (secular) marriage and a civil partnership? I don't understand all the fuss. Surely the only issue with gay couples is that some churches/religious institutions won't marry them? As an atheist, I couldn't give a toss, but I suppose I can see why they are aggrieved. But that is all the business of the godbotherers, nothing to do with the state. AFAICS, "civil partnership" = "secular marriage". Already legal and equal, so what's the problem? Is it just arguing over semantics? There isn't any, you're right it is literally an argument over semantics. The gay side argue (with validity) that they aren't really on an equal footing if what they have is considered in law to be a different thing (that encompasses all the same benefits). It's not even that civil partnership = secular marriage, a marriage is nothing more than a contract anyway so any marriage is effectively a secular one - the religious stuff is quite literally frippery. This is entirely argument over a word. The against mob makes some absolutely daft arguments back (the usual 'marriage=man and a woman, the end. Cos the bible/my book/God says' is the corner stone) including a personal favourite of mine, that allowing same sex marriages will devalue all those already extant heterosexual marriages. I'm not even sure how they work that one out but I don't like to think too hard about the type of mind that will consider their marriage sullied because Janet and Jane got hitched down the road. The Church biased element also is particularly against the change because they're absolutely terrified if same sex marriage is allowed to call itself that, they'll have a load of court cases on their hands when they don't want to do it. In my view that's up to them to decide and of course the ones that do make a stand will only be easier to find so we can point and laugh at the bigots more easily. All over a word. Madness. It's interesting that a few voices today have piped up and said they should open up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples - I wholeheartedly agree, as I know you do too Mike, and I hope that opens the door for 'a civil partnership' becoming a much more useful bit of legislation letting anyone sign a bit of paper that entitles 2 or more people to be viewed as a single entity in law in certain instances. It's also interesting that Nick Clegg piped up and basically told people clammering for civil partnership equality to shut up - he seems to be afraid that it's intention is to create animosity to the same sex marriage bill (which he may be right on in fairness... but it's actually a wholeheartedly good idea). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 While the swivel-eyed loons squabble with each other, Labour is getting on with the work of government and pushing the same-sex marriage bill through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2013 Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said the plans were "divisive" and suggested there were are plenty of people "in the aggressive homosexual community who see this as but a stepping stone to something even further".So what does he imagine comes after marriage equality, a campaign to ban heterosexual marriage?And what on earth are the aggressive homosexual community?Plenty more SEL out there today too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Yes I heard Gerald on R4 earlier, worrying about the aggressive homosexual community. I did a little laugh out loud. I did picture his eyes swivelling as he phoned in the interview from home, wearing his little leather harness. There doesn't appear to be much difference between partnership and marriage, what I got from a full day of radio was that you can't use adultery as a legit reason to annul a partnership, but you can in a marriage. Also, civil partnership isn't recognised in many other countries. Portugal for instance recognises gay marriage and would let two men buy a holiday home as a legal 'couple' if they were married but not if they were, er, partnershipped. Pension rights might be a bit different. I'm not sure you're going to see many people fingered for not carrying out gay marriages in church thus exposing zealots. My understanding is that you can ask for a particular church because you'd like it in the photo's, but you can't ask for a specific individual to marry you. So I guess those opposed to the idea would simply deal with the straight weddings and defer to other colleagues that will marry same sex couples. I do struggle to see how this is being turned into quite such a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said the plans were "divisive" and suggested there were are plenty of people "in the aggressive homosexual community who see this as but a stepping stone to something even further". So what does he imagine comes after marriage equality, a campaign to ban heterosexual marriage?And what on earth are the aggressive homosexual community? Plenty more SEL out there today too Nigel Evans MP? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 20, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted May 20, 2013 Pension rights might be a bit different.Not the case or my former quiz team captain ( wouldn't have been waffling about the extra £4bil a year it would cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Pension rights might be a bit different. Not the case or my former quiz team captain ( wouldn't have been waffling about the extra £4bil a year it would cost I think, maybe, what I was hearing was that same sex partners and married couples had similar pension rights. But some hetro couples didn't want to get married, but might consider civil partnership. If that was the case, then their pension rights would then alter. That might be it. I was distracted by the spectre of the aggressive homosexual community rising up against us and forcing us to wear pink and join am dram groups. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Dave's been awfully quiet of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 today we scrapped our aircraft carrier, new one won't be built here and won't be ready before the year 2020 - but we couldn't scrap the Ark Royal ourselves, we've had to send it to Turkey for somebody else to cut it up for us but hey, about this gay marriage thing....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 today we scrapped our aircraft carrier, new one won't be built here and won't be ready before the year 2020 - but we couldn't scrap the Ark Royal ourselves, we've had to send it to Turkey for somebody else to cut it up for us but hey, about this gay marriage thing....... Government decided that we could do without fixed wing naval aviation for a long period, which is crazy in the eyes of many. Disposal is whittled down to the most feasible, and then the best financial return, so clearly the Turkish scrapper made the best offer. I agree with your sentiment by the way, but I think that your example isn't the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Norman Tebbit in the Times "Maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? I quite fancy my brother." It's at times like this that you really do see what certain people are really about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Norman Tebbit in the Times "Maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? I quite fancy my brother." It's at times like this that you really do see what certain people are really about A prime example of a SEL right there. I know the Thatch has exited stage, but surely this complete loon bag can't be too far behind. Also, surely his natural home would be UKIP these days? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 He went on to say “When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?’ Let's put a stop to that. Let's become a republic. I don't know where they're digging these old Torys up from but they do make me laugh. Swivel-eyed loon, the lot of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 link “It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I’d be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn’t a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters living together marry each other?” Surely the concept is not just a question of pecuniary advantage, Tebbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Such an awful, odious man. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Norman Tebbit in the Times "Maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? I quite fancy my brother." It's at times like this that you really do see what certain people are really about A prime example of a SEL right there. I know the Thatch has exited stage, but surely this complete loon bag can't be too far behind. Also, surely his natural home would be UKIP these days? His natural home is a locked ward, probably sleeping in a coffin during the hours of daylight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 21, 2013 He went on to say “When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?’ Let's put a stop to that. Let's become a republic. This. That child is a child. He or she can go to school, get a job, whatever. It's a fantastic quote that beautifully illustrates the absurdity of the whole inherited monarchy idea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Danny Wallace @dannywallace 2m When Norman Tebbit marries his fiancee, Kevin Tebbit, he will regret it! Because as the father of the bride he'll have to pay for it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I quite like "Swiveleyesation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 So on the £4bn figure, it is reported here that, like many other government figures recently, it's a made-up number, plucked out of the air for effect, and having no base in reality. ...But is the £4bn figure right? No: on Monday afternoon the Treasury admitted the figure had nothing to do with any actual estimation of costs that the amendment would create. Although the understanding of how the liabilities could arise is right, a Treasury spokesperson said the figure was meant to be "illustrative" only. The costing was taken from government evidence in the 2011 legal battle Cockburn v the secretary of state for health, which, although it was about pensions, surviving spouses and equal treatment, had nothing to do with civil partnerships. "[it] is a figurative example that the minister uses to exemplify what happens when you start to run into equalising rights for people. There are costs to [doing] that," a Treasury spokesperson said. Isn't there a code of conduct covering this wilful and deceitful misuse of statistics? I thought there was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts