Uk courts decide all people aren't equal

[Angilion]

I've always considered Marriage a religious ceremony too.

Supposing Christianity is true, which is the largest religion in the UK, then Marriage is a gift from God. It wasn't required to be married in a church or in front of a priest until the Roman ages. Before then a man and woman could agree between themselves to be married.

After it, too. In England, involving the church wasn't required until the mid 18th century.

Also, marriage in ancient Rome wasn't always a religious ceremony. There was an inherently religious marriage, but it was very rare indeed. It couldn't be done at all outside of Rome itself. Religion was an optional extra for the other forms of marriage. Before Christianity conquered the Roman empire, Romans could get married by saying they were married and automatically became married after a year of continuous cohabitation.

These religious ties to marriage is why gay couples could not be married and so we have civil partnerships and I absolutely think civil partnerships should be extended to the non-religious just like marriage was. And since civil partnerships is a man made creation there is no reason it shouldn't be all inclusive.

The religious ties to marriage are equally artificial. Customs are made by people.

 

[Angilion]

Gah, quoted instead of edited. The button has moved.

 

[wolfie138]

would you say that people campaigning for gay marriage after CPs were introduced were 'attention whores' too?

how is that even remotely similar? marriage is stipulated between a male and female, so they campaigned to have a same-sex equivalent - which is exactly what civil partnerships are.

 

[wolfie138]

Marriage was specifically introduced for a man and a woman. It has both historical and religious precedent yet the law was changed and people are now forced to carry out a practice they may morally or religiously disagree with.
So why do CPs trump that?

who is being "forced" to do what, exactly? why do you think an equivalent situation "trumps" the one you're in?

 

[Dis86]

who is being "forced" to do what, exactly? why do you think an equivalent situation "trumps" the one you're in?

A large number of priests and ministers have been forced to carry out same sex marriages or face prosecution. That's who.
And if marriage didn't trump a CP then why did courts rule in favour of opening it to same sex couples?

 

[kedge]

A large number of priests and ministers have been forced to carry out same sex marriages or face prosecution.

Then they need to cut all ties with the government and get out of mainstream christanity that prostitutes itself with the governing authorities, the bible mentions something about the whore of babylon, get out of her.

 

[wolfie138]

A large number of priests and ministers have been forced to carry out same sex marriages or face prosecution. That's who.

kinda their own fault for not being as open and tolerant and loving of all other god's creatures as they pretend then.

And if marriage didn't trump a CP then why did courts rule in favour of opening it to same sex couples?

so now you're saying marriage trumps CP? why is everything a "trump" w/ you? this isn't a contest, there's one "institution" that was causing problems for same-sex couples so they created an EQUAL on in CPs for them. it's only when idiots want to act all entitled and decide they're too good to follow convention.

 

[Tefal]

So, a little while back a law was passed which gave homosexual couples the same rights in regards to marriage as heterosexual couples. Something which in the process stepped on the toes of numerous religious groups and individuals.

Now however the courts have decided that heterosexual couples don't have the same rights as homosexual couples when it comes to civil partnerships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

Nice!

civil partnerships need to be removed.



if people want an alternative to marriage it needs to be created new, not converting the civil partnerships.


after all you're never short of a loo in the pentagon because of polices exactly like the"civil partnership"

 

[Tefal]

so now you're saying marriage trumps CP? why is everything a "trump" w/ you? this isn't a contest, there's one "institution" that was causing problems for same-sex couples so they created an EQUAL on in CPs for them. it's only when idiots want to act all entitled and decide they're too good to follow convention.

bizarrely if you have a civil partnership, you cannot file for divorce with adultery as the reason.

so marriage does trump it a bit.

 

[Tefal]

Then they need to cut all ties with the government and get out of mainstream christanity that prostitutes itself with the governing authorities, the bible mentions something about the whore of babylon, get out of her.

and the government needs to stop the churches tax free status.

 

[Tefal]

what's the actual difference between marriage and civil partnership?
form what i can see adultery cannot be used when disolving the partnership and you can't call yourself married but that's it.

don't see the point on this one really.

 

[Tefal]

A large number of priests and ministers have been forced to carry out same sex marriages or face prosecution. That's who.
And if marriage didn't trump a CP then why did courts rule in favour of opening it to same sex couples?

since when was there not a tripple lock that meant the COE did not have to perform gay marriges?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../140423_M_SSC_Act_factsheet__web_version_.pdf

ensure
s
those religious organisations
which
wish to do so can opt in to
marry
same
sex couples
according to their rites
;

protect
s
religious organisations
and their representatives
from successful legal
challenge
if they
do not wish to marry same
sex couples;

The quadruple lock:

Makes clear that
a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple will only
be possible if:
i.
the governing body of the religious organisation has opted in by giving
explicit consent to
marriages of
same sex
couples
;
and
ii.
the individual minister is
willing to conduct the marriage,
and
iii.
if
the ceremony
takes place in a place of worship, those premises have
been registered for marriages of same sex couple

ugh terrible formatting

 

[dowie]

how is that even remotely similar? marriage is stipulated between a male and female, so they campaigned to have a same-sex equivalent - which is exactly what civil partnerships are.

wait you're asking how is it similar then stating that civil partnerships are the same-sex equivalent. I think you've answered your own question there.

So again do you also think that people who campaigned for gay marriage once CPs were allowed are also 'attention whores'?

 

[dr_volki]

@Tefal
re my post. probably should have said it better.
But i don't see the point in having civil partnership. Just allow same sex marriages and be done with it.
i certainly don't see marriage as a religious thing and for me personally i don't see it as anything special. Yes i'm married but i don't love my wife more now than i did before. Now she just shares my name. (hope she doesn't see this )

 

[Tefal]

@Tefal
re my post. probably should have said it better.
But i don't see the point in having civil partnership. Just allow same sex marriages and be done with it.
i certainly don't see marriage as a religious thing and for me personally i don't see it as anything special. Yes i'm married but i don't love my wife more now than i did before. Now she just shares my name. (hope she doesn't see this )

ah yes exactly, ditch the civil partnership.

it's a shame to our country it ever existed.

 

[Tefal]

wait you're asking how is it similar then stating that civil partnerships are the same-sex equivalent. I think you've answered your own question there.

So again do you also think that people who campaigned for gay marriage once CPs were allowed are also 'attention whores'?

no as they where not given a marriage equivalent they where given a second class status where they couldn't say they where married.

so they campaigned for equality.

 

[dowie]

no as they where not given a marriage equivalent they where given a second class status where they couldn't say they where married.

so they campaigned for equality.

I've not stated they're equivalent, the question was directed at the other poster as he felt the need to label this couple 'attention whores'

 

[Tefal]

I've not stated they're equivalent, the question was directed at the other poster as he felt the need to label this couple 'attention whores'

This couple kind of are its unessecery it needs to be scapped.

If you want something that is a marrige in all but name for everyone then make that donr rry to drag out this frce

 

[dowie]

This couple kind of are its unessecery it needs to be scapped.

If you want something that is a marrige in all but name for everyone then make that donr rry to drag out this frce

But that is what they do want?

I don't see how it affects anyone else if they're allowed to do this?

 

[Angilion]

how is that even remotely similar? marriage is stipulated between a male and female, so they campaigned to have a same-sex equivalent - which is exactly what civil partnerships are.

That would be a good point if marriage in the UK was restricted to heterosexual couples, but it isn't. Homosexual couples can choose, heterosexual couples can't. The comparison you're responding to is accurate and your dismissal of it isn't.