If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But it'd be two women raising the child? That isn't "natural" in your eyes...
I don't understand the difference between a women having a baby with a man, and then raising it with another women... than two women or two men adopting a baby who was also naturally conceived by a man and a women.
Also, are you against IVF and surrogacy? They are not "natural" forms of conception.
But people do, people are really unpleasant, the world is, as you say, a cruel place. But homosexuals like me and your "annoying" friend don't want it to be cruel to us. So we're trying to change it. Why isn't that ok?
:yes: I'd absolutely love to come out openly as bisexual, but I'm scared. The world shouldn't be like that at all.
agreed. I see no problem with either.
If what they wear is so irrelevent than how can Suzy call me a Chav simply because I used to wear trackies and Henri Lloyd jackets and have a Staffordshite Bull Terrier?
Seems to me everybody has a different definition making the word even more idiotic to use.
Banning Pit Bulls has been a complete waste of time.
I was using a very dilute definition
I think I would probably agree, but dog ownership needs to be regulated if the breed is not. Some dogs can be extremely dangerous, because of their size and breed, but temperament and training is down to ownership and breeding.
all the best sex is completely unnatural
Although I think it is way too easy for heterosexual people to get married
Firstly, for pendantics sake, it's a civil partnership, I only say this because heterosexual couples can have a civil marriage.
Secondly, in a civil partnership, adultery is not grounds for dissolution, because consummation doesn't exist and sex is nothing to do with a gay relationship. (I understand that it's possible that this will STILL not be grounds under equal marriage, which bothers me, if the rules are different, they're not equal. Thought I also think that the phrasing used for dissolution and divorce may be similar I.E "irretrievable breakdown". but shagging around in a civil partnership doesn't count. Though some judges may consider it unreasonable behaviour, they don't actually have to.)
Thirdly, my understanding is that you are prohibited from having any religious thingys as part of your ceremony to enter into civil partnership.
Fourthly, if you change your gender, your marriage or civil partnership are automatically no longer recognised. I don't think that's fair on trans people.
And while I'll agree that generally there's little wrong with equality, I consider it a bit of a challenge to be fully committed to a cause when the reason is 'change for the sake of change'.
Frankly, the 4th one is a BIG deal for some people, and I know people who have had problems with it. I also know people who consider themselve inter-sex, i.e. not having a gender, so having to declare it public by having EITHER a marriage OR a civil partnership isn't fair on them.
One more inequality, is that civil partners don't get courtesy titles. Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, his wife is the Duchess, not because she was made duchess, but because she married William. Similarly if you are made a lord in the upper house, your wife is automatically called a lady. I admit, I don't know what Baroness Thatcher's husband's courtesy title would be, but he would probably have been address as my lord automatically, because of marriage.
If I get made a Dame, or a Lady or a Baroness, and am in a civil partnership, there is no courtesy title for my partner.
These may seem like small things, but, perhaps being asked to sit at the back of the bus because you were black was a small thing too.
If it's not the same, it's not equal, and if it's not equal, it's not right.
That seems to be quite a bit of detail and I'm sure if you had the time and inclination you'd be able to bring up more. However....we aren't all equal. Granted we should be, and if humans were created like robots it would be a whole lot easier.
If we made legislation for each and every differing detail, view and opinion etc then I can't see how the hell we would get anything done. No, I'm not saying you should just have to accept it (and neither am I saying I think the status quo re: civil partnerships is right/wrong) but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere - and again, I'm not saying where the line is right now is correct. But within reason.
I think there should be ONE system. Not one system for heterosexuals, and one for homosexuals. It's not on. What I want, is for civil partnerships to be done away with, and marriage law re-written so that two people and join in law and love and be together.
Like Suzy said further up - this is about love. Why do people want to taint such a lovely issue with hate?
I believe you will get that one day - and this is coming from a God-botherer.
My only concern/gripe/whatever in all this is how quickly it is being forced on society with almost a link-it-or-lump-it attitude. For such a transition in society to run smoothly as possible I think you would need to have as many people on-board as possible. Having these changes 'rushed' through will only serve to make people defensive and resistive.
OK when I say 'rushed' I know this has taken many years. Progress has not gone as well as one may hope however progress IS happening yet it will be hindered if any resistance is met with the classic "You're just an evil bigot" line.
Up until about 10 years ago I was against any sort of official 'union' between gays. Nothing to do with my faith, it's just how I was brought up. I have sympathy with those that are still against it but I recognise things must change. However what took me so long to change my view was the verbal attacks and insults I received when airing my views. THAT is what I think will impede required progress.
Again, that's a notion I take issue with. Objection does not necessarily mean hate.
There was a programme on recently about the same issue (child abuse) in the Jewish community, as they are generally discouraged from reporting to authorities from outside the faith and encouraged to let rabbi's deal with it. It was quite scary
On that basis should the BBC be banned from making programmes involving children?