General Chat

It is truly difficult to understand what all the fuss is about.

There are few people who are 100% heterosexual or gay, as with most things there are many shades of gray. The UK managed to get laws changed 50 years ago so that whatever yr preference it is legal.

It is very much worth remembering that there is a very long list of gay people who have contributed hugely to our country of whom I guess Oscar Wilde, L S Lowry, Alan Turing and Freddie Mercury are some of the best known though I could go on and on

It seems to be invidious that such people should not enjoy the choices in their private lives as everybody else and by extension all the ordinary Joes and Gillians as well.

Although the UK has the very odd constitutional quirk of an established church it is not ruled by any church but by a parliament which thankfully is very diverse.

The recent vote has done no more than allow gay people to enter into a long term commitment if they chose to do so.

As to the meaning of marriage - it is a loving commitment to another person forsaking all others. This is the irrefutable logic that the Commons has followed.

Of course most of the religious groups will adhere to the age old definition of " a man and a woman " though some won't e.g. the Quakers and many Anglicans have misgivings.

I doubt any legal challenges to the church opt out would be successful. OTOH employers, places offering marriage celebrations, insurers and so on will have to follow the law once the vote has been ratified. This is bound to cause some front page stories in the Daily Mail.

The Christian church is a religion of the New Testament not the Old. The whole point of the Christian movement is that it is inclusive, based on the concept of being respectful to your fellow human beings or as John Lennon put it "All You Need Is Love". There is no echo of Leviticus in the New Testament - probably the most subversive text of all time.

Unfortunately the ideas of Paul of Tarsus established a hierarchical, exclusive church confirmed in the Nicean creed. It is arguable that it has taken 2 000 years to start getting back to first principles.

As to those without religion it is impossible to imagine they could oppose the change in the law. On what basis when Dawkins postulates that we are all our own god ?

Me myself I live with a very sexy Latin lady and so have no personal axe to grind. I usually take communion with her in the RC church though I am a closet Anglican.

<3

To be fair, back in the day, when I was very young early '60s..the phrase "confirmed bachelor" was often used in the press for someone who was known to be gay ( actors mostly) but obviously to be openly homosexual then was taboo and would ruin a career ( at best) so yes it was used as a euphemism, but not to my hearing as an abusive term... but then , i never heard abusive terms in my home about homosexuals :-D

Anyone remember the film 'Victim' with the wonderful Dirk Bogarde?

aivlyS. No chance of hearing your view about same sex marriage, I suppose.

Confirmed bachelor? I heard that expression first about 10 years ago. A rather respectable cousin used expression when we were talking about a relative on our respective tree. And, as he went on to discuss his love for the theatre and home furnishings etc, I kind of picked up what he meant. Certainly not said in any hateful way.

Have heard it many many times since in same context. As many times actually as batting for the other side, dressing on wrong side, and the batting expression SueMaid used earlier which I forget but that was new to me.

Usually, these terms are used in a loving context. But sometimes, not :-(

According to the Urban Dictionary "confirmed bachelor" has been used as a euphemism for a gay man since Victorian times. I can't remember a time when I didn't know it was an expression used in the press for a gay man.

I am genuinely gobsmacked then..because I've used the term myself and never for a second meant to suggest that !!!!! Blimey.... :-S

I hadn't really thought much about this until Ann's thread! I would like to know

a) if civil partnerships between same-sex couples and marriages between men and women provide exactly the same LEGAL protections and benefits, why do same-sex couples want the option of marriage?

b) if gay marriage is made legal, what will happen to the legislation regarding existing civil partnerships? Will they be 'discontinued'? Will those in existing civil partnerships have their rights protected?

c) why is David C so 'keen' on this when it was not part of the mainfesto or Queen's speech and he didn't even bother to turn up to the debate? Hmmmm - easy vote-winner?? :-D

I'm gobsmacked too Muffy

By the way Terry, if you don't remove your offensive posting I shall be reporting it, unless someone else does it before me - you altered it to yet another offensive word

It is me who reported Terry's post. The language he used is unacceptable, he appears to have made no attempt to change his wording acceptably and have asked Genes to review.

There is an old member that I would love to have still been here to see this thread.

I wonder if it is the same one I am thinking of Sylvia? :-D He's much missed!

Do you mean the Londoner aivlyS ? :-)

yes Budgie :-)

Question I asked you, aivlyS is what is your opinion of same sex marriage.

AnnC has stated in OP that she cannot think it is right in any which way. And then said a few posts ago that she is in favour of civil partnerships for gay people - but presumably AnnC either:
a. Wants to abolish civil marriage ceremonies, or
b. Wants to maintain inequality between couples who are homosexual and those who are hererosexual.

But what is your opinion, aivlyS? And what might be the view of your "old member"?

John, I don't think any of us would even TRY to speak for the "old member", with good reason. But suffice to say that their wit and wisdom is always missed in any debate on here, on any topic.

Nice chap aivlyS , and very straight talking, :-D

Yes Rose very much missed , John I would never dream of giving the view of anyone else .

I am not sure yet whether aivlyS agrees with AnnC that civil partnerships are good, but marriage between homosexuals is wrong in every which way.

Or whether she agrees with my view that homosexual marriage is ok in registryy offices but that it should never be forced on religious organisations.

Or whether she believes something else.

aivlyS, no one will leap on you for expressing your opinion, I would hope. But it may be more constructive than suggesting what somebody else might say or just having a snipe at anybody in your sights.

OMG I am in shock :-0 So does that mean when its written in the media that Cliff Richard is a confirmed bachlor that they are assuming he is gay? I honestly thought he had never married because as he has said many times he had just never met the right women, of course I have heard the rumours but thought they were just that.

As the for using the words like poof queer lesa homo, I would be a lair if I declared I had never used such terms, of course I have, I havent heard queer or lesa in a long time. I have a pair of shoes I refer to as my Lesbecan shoes and I have done so in the comapny of a Lesbian women at work now she never pulled me for it and believe me if she was offended she would of done,, I would rather chew my own vomit then knowley offend anyone.

As for our dear old Uggers I assumed we are referring to as the past member of here, well to be honest depending on his mood at the time, he would probably say he couldnt give a toss or cant be arsed with others opinions or once he said he couldnt stand gay men ( I assuemed he ment the flamboyant ones) I have also seen him use the words poofs on here as well. :-D

@Sheila,

The present civil ceremony has nothing law binding between a gay couple.
a Marriage would give the same legal automatic status as a man and woman would have.

At present the partner is not classed as next of kin and cant lay any claim to the partners assests unless a Will has been made,which can be contested by the partners family.
The partner can by the next of kin have no say over a partners funeral if there is any conflict.......

so many legal hurdles at present that can present themselses under the present civil declaration to each other.

There have been cases where a same sex couple have built a life over many years,,,,,,,when one partner dies,the family can take half of everything and claim full rights of the deceased.
........but a religious marriage is a right that most gays want...to have a choice.

I dont think our past Ugg could stand camp.gives out the wrong image of the macho gay..... ;-) :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D.

It does not bother me if my cousin lives with her female partner, in a civil partnership. They are happy with this. have made out their wills leaving all to each other and stating their wishes. They had a lovely reception, with all the bride/bride trimmings, photo.s taken in a beautiful setting.

A Civil Partnership whether between same sexes or not, binds that couple together.

The demand that the church marry a same sex couple has come too fast many people are just getting round the fact that you can now walk down any street & be faced with same sex couples pawing & kissing.

Do not bother asking her John, she is very good at sniping at other people about their lives/beliefs but never actually gives any information as to her own.