Is it now to be Sir Elton and Lady David????

Acrylic-bob · 21-12-2005, 18:46

I am a little surprised that no one else has started the discussion yet. Clearly you are all to preoccupied with Christmas preparations.

Today we saw a relatively small but potentially momentous change in the law. For the first time, in England, it became legally possible for two members of the same sex to publicly affirm their love for each other and to have that affirmation recognised by the law as a Civil Partnership. This single act accords such partnerships more or less the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by married couples of the opposite sex.

Society has travelled a long way since the days of my youth, when same sex partnerships were unheard of, because homosexuality itself was illegal and would, on conviction, result in a lengthy prison sentence. Homosexuals were also frequently the hapless victims of blackmail and homophobic violence.

The Christian right has worked itself up into the predictable moral frenzy about the whole issue, predicting the end of civilisation as we know it and all manner of divine sanctions as a result of the moral laxity which condones what they view as an abomination in the eyes of their god.

Odd how the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

Speaking personally, I think that all the aping of heterosexual marriage is a bit tacky and just a tad silly. I agree there has to be some formal ceremony to make what is in effect a contract, but I would have hoped that my outre brothers and sisters could have come up with a more imaginative way of doing it. After all, they have had plenty of time to think about it. Still I would like to send my best wishes and congratulations to anyone getting partnered today. I hope your lives continue to be filled with love and happiness.

Anyway, mawkish sentimentality aside, what do members think about this contentious issue?

Are Civil Partnerships seen as redressing an enduring inequality?
Or are they the thin end of a very thick wedge which will be the ruin of us all?

Gayle · 21-12-2005, 19:29

I don't have any issue with 'partnerships' in this sense. I always thought it was a bit unfair when one half of a same sex couple was not afforded the same rights on the death of their partner as a live in lover of a different sex. I think this is the inequality that it should be addressing. If two people (either same sex or different sex) share their lives for a substantial amount of time they should be allowed the same rights on the death of one or the other.

However, they are NOT marriages and I am very annoyed by the media and other people who call them that.

Gayle · 21-12-2005, 19:30

PS - it can not be 'Lady' David - that issue has already been discussed in the papers because it is not a marriage and you can only get a title like that through marriage.

Bazf · 21-12-2005, 19:37

Its time we got in to the 21st century, so 2 guys or 2 girls want to live together so what.
As you say AB it is the Christian right that will be up in arms they are as bad as the mullahs.
The new civil partnership law gives gay couples the same property and inheritance rights as married heterosexuals and entitles them to the same pension, immigration and tax benefits.
Unlike in Belgium, Spain and Canada it is not a marriage, however, prompting criticism from gay rights campaigners.
"By legislating a two-tier system of relationships, Labour (government) has, in effect, created a form of legal apartheid based on sexual orientation," Peter Tatchell of the OutRage!
Can't please everyone

shakermaker · 21-12-2005, 20:44

This law is long overdue; and yet still riddled with differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
For a heterosexual couple can marry at 16 with parental consent; yet homosexual couples must be 21, which puzzles me considerably.
It's going to be a very long time yet before things are equal in this country.

Acrylic-bob · 21-12-2005, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

PS - it can not be 'Lady' David - that issue has already been discussed in the papers because it is not a marriage and you can only get a title like that through marriage.

Thanks Gayle, I was aware of that, actually, I was attempting a little tongue-in-cheek humour, what with it being the festive season and all. And to be fully frank and honest I was at a bit of a loss for a better title for the thread. But it has been a long day and I am tired and that was the best I could come up with. Not up to my usual standards, I agree, but at least it is eye catching.

chav1 · 21-12-2005, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

because homosexuality itself was illegal and would, on conviction, result in a lengthy prison sentence.

although the benefit of been locked up with hundreds of sex starved men didnt hurt them

some more tongue in cheeck humour for you there AB lol

Acrylic-bob · 21-12-2005, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

This law is long overdue; and yet still riddled with differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
For a heterosexual couple can marry at 16 with parental consent; yet homosexual couples must be 21, which puzzles me considerably.
It's going to be a very long time yet before things are equal in this country.

Oddly enough, I agree!

But when you get to my age you realise that Rome was not built in a day and you learn to be grateful for whatever you get. It will do to be going on with and has made some people very happy indeed. I am sure however, that Mr Tatchell and his supporters will not be putting aside their campaigning to rest on their laurels just yet.

Doug · 21-12-2005, 20:58

There entitled to share the same rights as other partnerships and should equally pay the same price when they fall apart. It’s not something that I think deserves a lot of time spent on it and for those waving the rainbow banner and shouting the odds, with rights comes responsibility, marriage in its true sense should never be an issue and I don’t believe that same sex couples bring up children.

This is perhaps a positive move forward for those previously dispossess by the state or family, but it shouldn’t go much further. I regret anyone should be offended by my views, but its how I feel on the subject. I also feel that there’s already been to much misleading information in the media already. If these folks are happy, so be it. Hopefully they will just get on with it like the rest of us have done.

Acrylic-bob · 21-12-2005, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

although the benefit of been locked up with hundreds of sex starved men didnt hurt them

some more tongue in cheeck humour for you there AB lol

I'm sure I don't know what you could possibly be refering to there, Chav.

Doug · 21-12-2005, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

I'm sure I don't know what you could possibly be refering to there, Chav.

I would be grateful if no one took the time to enlightened us, thank you.

shakermaker · 21-12-2005, 21:01

AB and myself agreeing......strange thigs are-a-happnin'!
Im glad progress has been made though, I know if I was in a homosexual relationship Id be overjoyed, but hey I can get married at my age the way I am haha

Congratulations to all the couples tying the knot today.

SPUGGIE J · 21-12-2005, 21:11

Sir Elton and the Hon David. Their civil marrige commitment shows a lot more maturity and modern thinking than certain sections of the populace. If they are happy and want legal protection and rights for each other then any couple should be allowed to take this action. The world needs to grow up and realise to progress we have to embrace. I watched the reports from NI Scotland and England and in my view there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a legal couple. The church reckons its the end of civilization but I can think of a few church attitudes that will be more likely to bring us down.

the real michael · 21-12-2005, 21:49

queen knights queen ... and now sir reg dwight the sodomite will be tying the
knot with its boybride .... (it should be a noose) and all this is going on with everyone around too gutless to speak their minds for fear of being outcast as racist/fascist/sexist or even "homophobic" ...all the red lines in the union jack
should be changed to big yellow streaks! ...now i know a lot of pretentious
do-goody chompers out there will be enraged by these words...good...youve been getting up my nose since i was born ... you think you are moralistic even
though you go against your creators wishes and /or sit on the fence?
whether you are a monk or a heathen monkey, homosexuals go against both
religeous laws and the laws of nature ...and to break either one will result
in chaos ( e.g. the atom bomb... aids ...i.v.f. etc)
theres a whole world of trouble coming this way ...and only the most disciplined will survive this "mass cull" ... its no use changing your mind
at the last minute ....society is being judged right now, and if you carry on
with this facade of equality ...you will be punished by even nature itself ...
this is the short of the tale ....if you think its ok for someone to sodomise
another peson then you are an anti-god full stop .. you can hide behind your
churches and your charity orgs and fake pesonalities but you cant fool your
judge.......go on folks..speak the truth and dont be gutless ...
most of the prophets told the truth and got hounded out of town for it!
what does that teach children when you can be encarcerated for speaking
your mind??? society is sick and deluded ... no wonder your children are
raping and murdering.......and sodomising each other ...nuff said...

shakermaker · 21-12-2005, 21:52

in the words of Daffyd Thomas:
BLOODY HOMOPHOBE!!!!

wake up michael, aka Mini Hitler