"Weed will never be legalized. We're not suicidal."

We re-elected George W. Bush, didn't we?

In most cases? A "civil partnership" or "civil union" or what have you, entails fewer benefits than a marriage. Just what those differences are depends on the jurisdiction.

Also the word marriage has a societal significance. It is a word that has history and meaning. "Civil partnership" sounds like something someone made up to technically fulfill some legal requirement (which is basically what it is). And you're perfectly aware of that fulhamish.

Could you please tell me why, if LGB persons are equal, they need to be kept separate?

Well in the UK, here is an article which explains that there is in effect no difference apart from religion: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/marriage_and_civil_partnerships/500385.html

Here is the summary:

Therefore, the main difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is religion. During the civil partnership ceremony there will tend not be any reference to religion or church as there are still sectors of religious society strongly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Oh and believe that those getting married have to publish their banns, whereas those having a civil partnership do not. Naturally a heterosexual couple is not allowed to form a civil partnership, perhaps because of this concession, who knows?

That may be in the UK but in the US marriage at the government level has naught to do with religion. You can be married by a mayor of a city and have to get a state issued marriage license but there is no religious requirement at all as that *god* violate the first amendment.

Would not god.

Civil unions in the UK are a convoluted bureaucratic mess.

"that there is in effect no difference apart from religion: "

No difference except it's absolutely unclear how 'civil unions' in the UK get recognized abroad & vice versa.

"I never even took a position in this thread (except, briefly, to support Invictus) except on legal points"

Exactly.

Let it never be said that Invictus, Semck and the rest care about the majority tyrannizing the minority. They make an elaborate case for why people are only entitled to rights if overwhelmingly majorities approve of those rights.

Is it clear how a gay marriage from the UK would get recognized abroad? Methinks most nations will treat them exactly the same. Tunisia, for example, would happily arrest gay couples of both unions.

So I am unclear, at least in the UK, what the gay community is asking for. It is certainly not equality under the law; they already have it. The only possible explanation, that I can come up with, is that they are demanding the right to have a religious ceremony in a place of worship. Indeed, I believe that many ''liberal'' ministers of religion do offer blessings of their union already. Could someone please tell me what exactly the demand is?

Excellent question fulhamish. I can see no *good* reason why gays wish to appropriate and warp the meaning of a word that everyone has understood for thousands of years. I would vote against gay marriage. It is a silly idea.

A quick gloss over of this article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_the_UK#Background" provides you with your answer. Gays in Britain want to be able to marry, not "Civil partnership". They want access to the same institution. The demand is pretty simple, to be able to get married.

Also from the same article "In 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005. It created civil partnerships, which gave same-sex couples who entered into them the same rights and responsibilities of marriage.[14] These partnerships were called 'gay marriage' by some of the British media,[15][16] however the government made clear that they were not marriage." So basically they created this alternate status, and then turned around and said "But it's not the same thing. It doesn't count the same way, but it's legally the same." and here you are making a fuss about how the gay community isn't satisfied with that solution. Gosh, I wonder why. *sarcasm*

The difference is that even the people who created these bullshit "civil partnerships" in order to be legally the same as marriages refuse to acknowledge them as the same thing.

Also I think my last answer also applies to this question. So I'll repeat it, even though I know you won't read it anyway.
"Also the word marriage has a societal significance. It is a word that has history and meaning. "Civil partnership" sounds like something someone made up to technically fulfill some legal requirement (which is basically what it is). And you're perfectly aware of that fulhamish."

@ fiedler - Words change definition all the time, to fit with changing usage and changing society. If enough people start using the word "marriage" to refer to a legally recognized partnership between people regardless of their genders, then that's a marriage two. It's not a distortion, it's just the natural growth of language to reflect the society in which it is used.

At Mafia with the greatest respect you are being evasive. Is the demand the right to be married in a place of worship? If not, then what exactly is being demanded?

As to the ''history and meaning'' of the word marriage compared to say the word wedding, that is an interesting point. Any classicists out there who can help on this one?

Also @fulhamish - Civil partnerships, or civil unions in other jurisdictions, or whatever else you want to call them are a completely made up thing that someone came up with in order to be able to say "There we've given you what you want, now shut up and go away." And now when the gay community refuses to accept this patronizing and dismissive substitute for what it is we actually asked for, you heteronormative assholes all get to turn around and say "We gave you what you wanted, we just called it something different. God you're all so whiny." You slap us in the face and then get to say it's our fault that we aren't happy about it. And we can see that, you're not fooling anyone, least of all the gay community. We're not stupid. And we sure as hell won't stand for that kind of bullshit.

What do you need a classicist for? I'm pretty sure anybody can tell you that marriage has historically represented the height of an interpersonal romantic union between two people, and from there the argument that denying some unions the right to that legitimacy is wrong makes itself.

fulhamish, does the British government recognize any such thing as a marriage? Is there a legal status called "married" in the UK?

The word wedding may have more history than the word marriage, I don't know, but both still have a much much longer history than the word "Civil Partnership" which in Britain is only 6-7 years old. Marriage may be a newer concept than I think, but I'm pretty sure it's age is in at least the double digits...

At Mafia with the greatest respect you are being evasive. Is the demand the right to be married in a place of worship? If not, then what exactly is being demanded?

PE - so I can marry my dog? I really love my dog and he loves me. He'd lick my balls clean if I asked him to. If that's not love....

Hey! Maybe we should have no traditions, standards, institutions whatsoever!
Apparently nothing means anything any more.

I'm off to murder a crowd of schoolchildren. But I insist that you always call me Saint Fiedler. Because I'd like that. And words change, words change.

Again, in order to answer that question fulhamish, I need to establish something first...
"does the British government recognize any such thing as a marriage? Is there a legal status called "married" in the UK?"

@ fiedler - No, the dog cannot meaningfully consent. Do you really think there isn't an answer to that. Again, words don't just change completely arbitrarily. You can't just say "I'm going to call my computer a giraffe!" and that's the end of it. But if the word "giraffe" entered common usage to refer to a form of electronic equipment then, eventually, given time, the meaning of that word would change.

@ Mafia and President. here is a piece written by a gay journalist on the demand for such marriages. it references the origin of the words:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/comment/comment/brian-sewell-cameron-is-wrong--gays-cant-be-allowed-to-marry-7574935.html

He covers the ''history and meaning'' of the word marriage, giving this as a summary:
''I am as queer as any of them but I do not much care for my brethren in crass, demanding mood. By all means dress in ridiculous togs, exchange rings and kisses, guzzle Laurent Perrier, bake a cake and dance the night away, but call it a wedding, an Old English term of even older German origin, with nothing theological about it — and leave marriage to those who still believe in its sanctity.''

@ mafia
Yes both marriage and civil partnerships are legally recognised. Indeed the lawyers do rather well out of the former and, soon to be the latter, when they go wrong. :-)

OK, so you've found one gay man who think that his own kind will harm the sanctity of marriage. Here's a gay man who disagrees: me. This self loathing asshole can go fuck himself, and so can you.

I wanna marry my dog! WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY I CAN'T????

hater.

Good. Thank you for answering my question.
Now to answer your question.
Your question: Is the demand the right to be married in a place of worship? If not, then what exactly is being demanded?
My answer: I cannot speak for every single gay couple in the UK. I'm sure some of them would like a religious ceremony, others perhaps not so big on the whole god thing. It varies from person to person, couple to couple, and even within couples, just as it does with straight people. I think the key point that is important to most people who are dissatisfied with Civil Partnerships, however, is that they don't like being kept apart, being considered different. They want their relationships, which mean as much as any other, to be legally recognized in EXACTLY the same way as any other legally recognized relationship. To be told that we're getting the same thing, but that it needs a different name to avoid offending hateful, narrow minded people; the same people who accuse us of preying on children, the same people who compare our relationships with fucking dogs, the same people who vandalize some of our houses and who in some cases attack us in the street, is insulting.

@ fiedler - nice trolling. You got to two posts before it became extremely obvious.