I've mentioned a few times before that I think that straight marriage should be banned. I think it's a silly and dated concept, which has no place in modern society.

In december, the civil partnerships act comes into force is the UK. This allows gays to get civil partnerships, but unfortunately, straight people cannot get civil partnerships, and have to settle with marriage instead. Evenmoreso, if civil partnerships were made available to straight couples, there is still an enequality in that whilst civil partnerships would be available to both gay couples and straight couples, marriage, as a government recognised institution, would only be available to straight couples.

I think that the solution is to ban straight marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and in a secular governmental system, it should be divorced from its legal recognition, and should remain a solely religious institution, and any couples seeking a religious marriage would be free to have one in a church, assuming the church allows them to, but that for governmental recognition of their partnership, they would need a civil partnership in addition to the religious marriage.

I think that offering civil partnerships to both gay and straight couples is the way forward, as it keeps marriage as a religious institution, which the church can control, and enables the government to allow partnership benefits to both gay and straight couples, whilst keeping whingeing from NIMBYs who hate gays to a minimum.

I think that banning straight marriage would be beneficial to society. I'm keen to know if anyone else has any support for my idea.

I like that idea.

Unfortunately, I'm sure most politicians don't.

yeah, i already banned straight marriage in my personal life. gay marriage too, btw.

Sod the politicians. They're all idiots. Brown-nosed incompetent fools.

I'm actually thinking about writing to my local MP and whingeing about the fact that when the civil partnerships bill comes in force, gays can have civil partnerships, but straights can't. The thing is that my local MP is a tory, which ain't good.

i agree that legally there should just be civil partnerships/unions for everyone.

Hehe. This is going to go over well.

Those big words confused me, Loki. :D


Well, it is (because of politicians and some of the general population of the world) quite unrealistic to assume lots of people will agree with the idea of banning straight marriage...since people are having a hard time with "un-banning" gay marriage. I'm a Christian and I agree with gay marriage. And I don't think I'll ever end up getting married--living in with my dad in the house has totally diminished any interest I had in marrying a man that I "loved"...believe me.


So, I agree. Maybe no-one should get married. We're all independent peoples.

i agree that legally there should just be civil partnerships/unions for everyone.


w00t w00t:hi: :guitar: :rockon:

I disagree, but hey, I'm always of the minority in Heap debates.

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, though. Really, I don't see what the difference is between civil partnerships and marriages except that a marriage usually involves a religious ceremony. I was married but it was a civil ceremony.

I disagree, but hey, I'm always of the minority in Heap debates.
I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, though. Really, I don't see what the difference is between civil partnerships and marriages except that a marriage usually involves a religious ceremony. I was married but it was a civil ceremony.


Me three...er, me, too!

I agree religious marriages shouldn't be recognised legally, only civil contractual arrangements, which should be universally fair for all consenting adults, should be recognised by the govmint.

If everyone started having civil unions, wouldn't that just become the "new marriage"? I guess I just don't get what the difference between a marriage and a civil union is, except for the religious aspect of it, and people who don't want religious ceremonies just have civil ceremonies.

I think that banning straight marriage would be beneficial to society. I'm keen to know if anyone else has any support for my idea.

I agree. :yes: But I hope that those of us who are already married don't have to go through divorce. Can existing marriages be upgraded to civil partnerships?

I do have one small point of disagreement. While I agree that marriage should be separate from the legal definition, I feel it is more than just a religious institution. It's also a cultural/community/family institution. What I'd love to see is families and communities celebrating same-sex unions as they do opposite-sex unions. And I think ending civic marriages is a step on the long road to that ideal.

I just think that gay marriage should be allowed too.

I agree religious marriages shouldn't be recognised legally, only civil contractual arrangements, which should be universally fair for all consenting adults, should be recognised by the govmint.

:yes:

Down with marriage, up with rampant, no-consequences sex!

i agree that legally there should just be civil partnerships/unions for everyone.

Same... well, everyone that wants one, anyway :p

I disagree, but hey, I'm always of the minority in Heap debates.

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, though. Really, I don't see what the difference is between civil partnerships and marriages except that a marriage usually involves a religious ceremony. I was married but it was a civil ceremony.

Ditto. Why do people think EVERY straight marriage is religious? Mine wasn't. In fact, I don't know anyone around me who's had one. And why should anyone have a problem with the way OTHER people get married anyway? If you go that route, you might as well ban religion all together. Why not take the focus off straight marriage, and focus on gay's rights? I guess I just don't understand...

ETA: BTW, if this has anything to do with your not agreeing with religion, why do you care? It's not like you're at the wedding having to listen to it.

I agree religious marriages shouldn't be recognised legally, only civil contractual arrangements,

Religious marriages are 'contractual'.... they just chose to say different stuff.

>>I agree religious marriages shouldn't be recognised legally, only civil contractual arrangements, which should be universally fair for all consenting adults, should be recognised by the govmint.>>

exactly.

ebola

I'd just like to emphasize:


BTW, if this has anything to do with your not agreeing with religion, why do you care? It's not like you're at the wedding having to listen to it.

PLEASE.... Before you type anything, I'm not trying to start an arguement. I am actually curious as to why anyone would care.....

I don't understand the difference between a civil partnernship and marriage. They sound exactly the same to me... I don't think there are any countries in the Western world anymore which do not require a civil service to get married (I'm talking here of straight couples). Religious services are a personal and optional thing and are not recognised as being sufficient to be called "married".

Or am I mistaken and there are still countries who recognise religious services as something official???? (This is certainly not the case where I live, nor in France where I got married.)

Here in the states couples can be married by all kind of different people. Some friends of mine just got married last weekend by another friend…a goofy guy and I guess he’s a minister or reverend or something (one of the those mail order deals because he’s definitely not religious) and their marriage is legal.

I'm not someone who does view marriage as a strictly religious issue, but I do acknowledge that marriage is percieved as such by the faithful, who don't want it tarnished by allowing the riff-raff (teh ghey) to marry. (but of course, prince charles can marry twice, and britney spears can have a marriage that is shorter than a game of cricket.)

I simply think that either marriage should be for both gays and straights, or that marriage should be abandoned. I'd be happy to see gay marriage, but I know that religious groups will whinge if that happens.

There are two tiers of unions: Civil partnerships, and marriages. What I am saying is that for equality, both gay and straight couples should be able to have their union recognised on the same tier, and since religious groups will whinge is gays use the marriage tier, the civil union tier should apply to both gay and straight couples.

There are two tiers of unions: Civil partnerships, and marriages. What I am saying is that for equality, both gay and straight couples should be able to have their union recognised on the same tier, and since religious groups will whinge is gays use the marriage tier, the civil union tier should apply to both gay and straight couples.
Exactly. :up:

Here in the states couples can be married by all kind of different people. Some friends of mine just got married last weekend by another friend…a goofy guy and I guess he’s a minister or reverend or something (one of the those mail order deals because he’s definitely not religious) and their marriage is legal.

I don't know the laws in other states, but here in CA you can get married by anyone, they just have to be 'sworn in' as a 'Deputy Commissioner of Marriage for the State of California.'

Reverends, ministers, priests, etc. still have to be sworn in by the state, therefore making it contractual and legal.