Quote:
|
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?
My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.
In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?
This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.
|
In the eyes of the gay community i'm sure many long term couples are described as "married". That commitment is seen and apreciated. Similarly a unmarried straight couple in a long term relationship are often referred to as marred and some even use the terms husband and wife, as they feel the term 'partner' should only be used in the business sense, and significant other, girlfriend / boyfriend sound stupid after 40.
So this really is about the economic benefits of marriage, and the legal recognition such as rights of access / consultation in hospital. Both can only be decided by a government.
In the UK this really comes down to inheretence - should a same sex couple be able to pass assets between each other tax free, most other married tax benefits have been withdrawn. In the US of course a married filing jointly tax return exists, and medical, which most doctors and nurses will happily ignore the legal reality and treat the partners equally, however it would still not be possible for them to sign a DNR or similar documents with legal authority.
I think there are greater things to worry about about in the world than this. Perhaps getting the Christians , Jews and Muslims to kiss and make up would be a start.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scarlett
One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marrage is a religious ceremony...
|
Or a civil ceremony devoid of religious reference, creating a legally binding contract, which is where the gay marriage would fit in.
I think it would be sensible to try and keep religion out of this thread (yet look what I wrote 3 paras up!) as getting religions to accept homosexuality is another matter, even though in the UK the Church and State both have the same Head, blurring the matter.