Even some straight people choose not to get married, they live in a partnership or de facto marriage, so why are gays busting a gut to get married?
Love is not dependent on marriage.
The whole issue is about equality and rights, not marriage. It is the law that determines marriage is essential for certain civil rights like pensions and health plans.
The laws should be changed so that these rights are on the same footing as straight de facto relationships then many gays will not need marriage. The paranoid religious right would then not even feel threatened, they can continue with their bigotry just as they always have.
In fact, many gays already are against marriage…
The gay people against gay marriage
After France’s first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?
“It’s demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage – the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same.”
Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn’t fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.
But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.
“We’re not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions,” says Soroff.
Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.
“I’m not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance,” adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.
“I’ve been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don’t understand why anyone wants to do that.
“I’m not saying that people who want that shouldn’t have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.”
Neither the church, the government nor companies have any right to meddle in anyone’s relationships or sex life, whether they are straight or gay relationships, polygamy, etc or not.
Come on, as all humans, we are consenting adults, we can responsibly consent to what we want in the bedroom, what we see as best for us. We do not need antiquated laws from another time to dictate to us.
My opinion, is simply let people get on with their lives on an equal footing, what ever they choose.
The whole legal question needs a revamp. I have rights in society, at work and within the law, why can’t my neighbour have those same rights? Is he less human than me? If you answer ‘yes’ to that question, then maybe your rights should be legally truncated.
Paying for sex: Women’s groups call for EU-wide ban
Campaigners say prostitution now needs regulating on an international as well as a national level
More than 200 women’s rights groups are calling for laws to make paying for sex a crime across the European Union.
Campaigners presented key policy recommendations for legislation to MEPs in Brussels on Wednesday.
“Prostitution is a form of violence, an obstacle to gender equality and an open door for organised crime to develop,” a campaign spokeswoman told the BBC.
But opponents say the move is likely to drive the prostitution industry further underground.
This story has been bleated ad nauseum.
I can’t believe that such fools exist.
Prostitution won’t just disappear until you tackle the cause of the problem…
It doesn’t matter if you introduce the death penalty for purveyors and clients, it still won’t ‘just go away.’
But of course, you’ll never see that as long as you are blinded by the religious necessity of marriage.
Religious tenets of 2,000 years have produced the myopic view that prostitution is the problem, where in fact it is the solution to the problem, until the problem is seen as a problem then prostitution will remain and nothing will remove it.
Meanwhile to make it illegal will merely endanger the prostitutes and make them victims of violence, deny them social services and access to the police when they have problems.
Read the full BBC article, there are by far more cons to criminalisation, than pros.
Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.
She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.
But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as “absurd and totally illegal”.
The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.
Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.
According to Globo TV, the union was formalised three months ago, but only became public this week.
Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.
Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a “family” had changed.
“We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”
“For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”
But lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC it was “absurd and totally illegal”, and “something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals”.
Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.
Some religious groups have also voiced criticism of the move.
While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.
Obviously it doesn’t go against Brazilian morals and values, if the arrangement is between Brazilians; it goes against Ms da Silva’s narrow perception of morals and values.
Religious groups can stay out of my bedroom if I am not of your religion; and, if your sensibilities are so damned intolerant, then I wouldn’t want any part of your religion.
Bravo to Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues and her stance on freedom.
I read often in the news how the church is against this and that, how it fails miserably to thrust itself into the 21st century.
It makes me angry.
The role of the church was to control people; literally to put the fear of God into them so they could be manipulated by the crown. The church has never lead, it has persecuted and committed atrocities in its name whilst serving the crown.
The beliefs of the church have remained rooted in the dark ages while the people have progressed, but the church refuses to progress, refuses to accept that the needs of the people are changing.
The role of the Pope, for example, is woefully inadequate. The church elects some geriatric old fart that has been sequestered away from life to dictate to the people what they should and should not do. This applies to other churches as well, although their geriatric old farts are at least free from the insular surroundings of the Pope, nevertheless, their views are remarkably outmoded.
As long as the church mind remains closed they will lose followers, people who once upon a time feared through ignorance, are now not so ignorant, but educated and open-minded. The fear of the church and God has largely disappeared; in a sense, the churches has become a eunuch, fat and useless, lacking the balls to meet the needs of the people instead of its own self-serving interests.
I read this morning:
Cardinal Keith O’Brien snubs gay marriage talks with Scottish government
Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic – Cardinal Keith O’Brien – has suspended direct communication with the Scottish government on gay marriage.
The move is in protest at the Scottish government’s support for the introduction of same-sex marriages.
The cardinal has turned down an invitation to meet government ministers to discuss the new legislation.
To be honest, that a man who purports to lead the people to have such an attitude makes him unfit for any public office.
To lead the people one must have at least an open mind, not one that perpetrates the church’s bigotry.
The church is worried, very worried. Their only hold on the people in today’s world is marriage. The are clutching at straws to retain that last controlling factor. Once marriage is defunct, the church virtually loses its purpose. They will therefore fight tooth and nail to save their own skins.
The church is the biggest employer on the planet. They are fighting for survival, the needs of the people are secondary. The church is as much of a business as any corporation, if marriage goes, so do the profits.
The church needs to wake up, if it doesn’t, it needs to be woken up.