Forget being called husband and wife, gay rights group wants 'parties to marriage' in bill to lega

Unions between two beings should not be regulated in any way, not by church, state, nor family. If two *whatevers* want to get together for whatever reason they choose, they should be able to do so without consulting anyone else.

In this bloody country (Finland), the authorities call you a couple when a brother and sister rent a flat together. That's not the case if you're two people of the same sex though. Brother and sister qualify automatically as a couple. Sick.

Government should get the hell out of our lives and let *us* mind our business.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather

 

Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.

edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Human beings are animals.

Did you not pay attention in biology class?

Actually - I think animals are a lot smarter in "hooking up".

The males have to prove their worth first.

edit on 18-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

This isn't a thread on feminazis. I know you hate us, but keep your arguments on topic plz.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by theBigToe

 

Actually I don't believe in our governments or laws, its beyond not believe I renounce and denounce all evil and corruption.
However, why do you think its fixed and remains like a rock over your head?
Of course they need to address this and make those changes, since gays are finally allowed to marry, they will need their own terms, and WHY NOT, have the real people choose instead of their servants?

That one makes sense!
What wouldn't make sense is if they had the right to force an across aboard change on us, the majority, when we don't want that change.
Would much rather have two sets of guidelines than that one.

Okay.... so you would rather live under a theocracy like Iran, or a lawless, state of anarchy where everybody can do whatever they want, steal, rape, murder, molest 4 year old children or rape a 6month old baby (this was in the news like 2 months ago)? Youre against criminals and crooks and yet you want to create a society that benefits them over everybody else? Hell... if we live under anarchy, IM STEALING YOUR XBOX FIRST. Just letting you know.

Im not saying you dont have the right to believe in what you believe, just that you dont have the right to impose those beliefs in my laws. Lots of people happily think its justifiable to stone people like you to death for "blasphemy". This could be law one day as Islam is the fastest growing religion in the country. Who knows what the populations majority religion will be in 30 years? It could be very against you in a lethal way. Do you want to have stood up for their right to see you put to death? It sounds a lot, but when you are voting to impose any religion on the law then youre voting that beliefs without evidence should be taken simply on a whim and be injected in the law.

If youre against the "zionist elite" then you should respect the idea that you are taking somebodys word for it that your religious beliefs are right and everybody else is wrong. (Lets ignore that I have a better chance of winning the lottery then you do of making it into heaven, since there are thousands and thousands and thousands of gods to choose from. Salvation is really just a matter of chance; a gamble; throwing the dice and hoping it pays off.)

From a legal standpoint, a gay partner is not allowed to visit their "spouse" or loved one in a hospital as they are not a legal family member if it's a critical injury. Seems rather barbaric to me. Your losing a loved one, and you can't even be there to say goodbye, by law.

That's ONE reason gays want gay marriage sanctioned. To have legal rights as a couple.

I'm Hetero so it's not a problem for me. For Gays it IS a problem. The argument that by changing the law it will lead to polygamists wanting to be sanctioned as a legal status is laughable.

I tryed to tell my wife that polygamy is a good idea and we should try it,and I'm going to go find a couple of additional wives to test drive.

THAT went well. NOT! Hehe

Tough spot for gays and the law.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Unions between two beings should not be regulated in any way, not by church, state, nor family. If two *whatevers* want to get together for whatever reason they choose, they should be able to do so without consulting anyone else.

Uh NO!

Contracts are for real legitimate reasons to protect rights and property.

What worked in the old days - - with families agreeing on the contract - - will not work in these modern times.

Laws/Government - - must be used as the legitimate means of issuing and defining the Contract of Marriage.

If you want to cohabitate - - - no one is stopping you.

If you want a Legal Contractual Marriage - - then it must be by law/government.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather

 

Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.

edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Human beings are animals.

Did you not pay attention in biology class?

Actually - I think animals are a lot smarter in "hooking up".

The males have to prove their worth first.

[

This isn't a thread on feminazis. I know you hate us, but keep your arguments on topic plz.

Yeah - - that's why I've been married for 22 years.

Men who think of women as Feminazis - - - are weak sniveling whiners. Someone a strong independent woman would cast aside.

Enough with the intended derogatory insult. It really only reflects on you.

Originally posted by niceguybob
From a legal standpoint, a gay partner is not allowed to visit their "spouse" or loved one in a hospital as they are not a legal family member if it's a critical injury. Seems rather barbaric to me. Your losing a loved one, and you can't even be there to say goodbye, by law.

That's ONE reason gays want gay marriage sanctioned. To have legal rights as a couple.

I'm Hetero so it's not a problem for me. For Gays it IS a problem. The argument that by changing the law it will lead to polygamists wanting to be sanctioned as a legal status is laughable.

I tryed to tell my wife that polygamy is a good idea and we should try it,and I'm going to go find a couple of additional wives to test drive.

THAT went well. NOT! Hehe

Tough spot for gays and the law.

Typical troll.
Read the opening post link and then make comments.
This isn't a thread on approval of gay marriage.

reply to post by Annee


If you think you should marry someone that you cannot trust, maybe you should think again - either about they really are or who you really are.

Unions are about joining forces to create a home. Possessions are just things. You can fight all day long about anything you want to if that's your game. Unions are about beings joining their lives together in a home. That's all it is. Make it more than that if you like, but anything more is just pollution.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather

 

Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.

edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Human beings are animals.

Did you not pay attention in biology class?

Actually - I think animals are a lot smarter in "hooking up".

The males have to prove their worth first.

[

This isn't a thread on feminazis. I know you hate us, but keep your arguments on topic plz.

Yeah - - that's why I've been married for 22 years.

Men who think of women as Feminazis - - - are weak sniveling whiners. Someone a strong independent woman would cast aside.

Enough with the intended derogatory insult. It really only reflects on you.

What part of STAY ON TOPIC you don't understand???

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
If "marriage" was not regulated by the government then this would not even be an issue.

Who cares what people do and what people call it as long as it does not step on the rights of others? This entire issue is getting old and we should keep our noses out of other people's lives...and the government should keep out of it too!

The government should not have any thing to do with a religious cermony like marriage ...

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by Lovebringer
Pretty much all I see is some QQ about not being a special snowflake anymore. Who CARES what they want to call it? Why does it matter to you? it's not really affecting anything in your life. If they want to call each other different names so what? I mean really with all the other actually important issues going on in the world, THIS is what matters. Marriage is not exclusively owned by any party. It was here before religion, and it will probably be here afterwards.

lol..
Marriage is a religious institution but i guess due to the fact that your history books mention only one religion i.e. christianity, you make such ridiculous statements.

Actually marriage was around before any major religion. It was actually done in a tribal society as a contract between two families. Marriage predates religion, not the other way around. Notice I did not exclusively mention Christianity. I hate to break it to you, but religion was not a factor in early marriage. I call it ketchup you call it catsup.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
If "marriage" was not regulated by the government then this would not even be an issue.

Who cares what people do and what people call it as long as it does not step on the rights of others? This entire issue is getting old and we should keep our noses out of other people's lives...and the government should keep out of it too!

The government should not have any thing to do with a religious cermony like marriage ...

It long lost its religion when it became a Legal Government Contract. Which is something definitely needed in today's complex society.

Marriage has always been about a contract. It is not about religion.

Rediculous what in the world is a parties to marriage? The whole article reeks especially when the gay activists said

He said gay rights activists wanted ‘to impose their agenda on every married couple by force of law’.

Already gay married couples in the UK want to be called husband and husband, wife and wife, why is it being force changed to parties? This makes no sense as someone with an agenda set it up to change the marriage names.

Now all the homophobes and religious cultists arrived to bash all gays and lesbians on ATS..just noticed many different comments especially from the Op.

Typical Troll? LOL. If I made an error in misreading what I read, so be it.

Your headline is completly misleading.

I didn't read "the Camel,story," I read the posts.

Watch who and how you insult people PAL. Not nice.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by Lovebringer
Pretty much all I see is some QQ about not being a special snowflake anymore. Who CARES what they want to call it? Why does it matter to you? it's not really affecting anything in your life. If they want to call each other different names so what? I mean really with all the other actually important issues going on in the world, THIS is what matters. Marriage is not exclusively owned by any party. It was here before religion, and it will probably be here afterwards.

lol..
Marriage is a religious institution but i guess due to the fact that your history books mention only one religion i.e. christianity, you make such ridiculous statements.

"Marriage" may be a religious institution, but we are talking about legal repercussions when it comes to next of kin, filing taxes, being able to visit in a hospital or make health decisions. This is why the controversy exists.

Governments used to appreciate the institution of marriage and reward it, because it resulted in procreation, which meant more tax-payers and soldiers for the government to exploit. Nowadays, with abortion and adoption and divorce and blurred lines of the term "family." Marriage is basically irrelevant when it comes to procreation, but we have unfortunately now tied the term "marriage" to legal rights of couples.

Therefore, the only solution is to unbuckle the term "marriage" from the legal rights of a couple. If someone wants to form a legal partnership, and make health decisions, and file taxes together, then they should be able to! And, furthermore, they should not have to be homosexual to do so! Straight, same-sex couples, should also be able to form a legal union. It would drastically improve the legal arrangements of older women living together and taking care of one another, or even of young responsible single people without family ties, but living responsibly and sharing one another's duties and lives. There should be no requirement to be homosexual?

"Marriage" can continue to be a sacred bond in the eyes of the church, and the church can decide whether or not they want to marry any particular couple, but the "marriage" aspect will be irrelevant in the eyes of the government, the legal union will be something seperate entirely.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by Annee

 

If you think you should marry someone that you cannot trust, maybe you should think again - either about they really are or who you really are.

Unions are about joining forces to create a home. Possessions are just things. You can fight all day long about anything you want to if that's your game. Unions are about beings joining their lives together in a home. That's all it is. Make it more than that if you like, but anything more is just pollution.

Then you are naive.

Idealism is a nice word - - not much else.

The reality is in the 50%+ divorce rate - - - and many custodial parents trying to survive without support. Even court mandated support.

I live in the real world.

Explanation: S&F!

Wow: A War over words. .. Here is why that is epic fail ...

Gay rights activists are campaigning to have the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ erased from the statute book as part of a bill to legalise same-sex marriage.
Pressure group Stonewall yesterday released a draft bill, intended as a ‘model’ for the Marriage Bill due later this year, calling for spouses to be known as ‘parties to a marriage’ to avoid confusion for homosexual couples.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

And ...

Its chief Ben Summerskill said: ‘It is a model for legislation and in some clauses you have to replace the words husband and wife because you cannot have two husbands or two wives.’

Pure POPPYCOCK!

Husband [freedictionary.com]

hus·band (hzbnd)
n.
1. A man joined to a another person in marriage; a male spouse.
2. Chiefly British A manager or steward, as of a household.
3. Archaic A prudent, thrifty manager.
tr.v. hus·band·ed, hus·band·ing, hus·bands
1. To use sparingly or economically; conserve: husband one's energy.
2. Archaic To find a husband for.

I don't see the word 'wife' being used there! Do You?

Wife [freedictionary.com]

wife (wf)
n. pl. wives (wvz)
A woman joined to another person in marriage; a female spouse.

I don't see the word 'husband' being used there! Do You?

I do however see both words have a plural version and also the word spouse itself being used and if anything SPOUSES is the correct term!

So this ...

Stonewall, a group which has been influential in Whitehall thinking since the late 1990s, said the necessary legal changes could be made in a Bill of five clauses

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

... is totally unnecessary!

Therefor ...

He said gay rights activists wanted ‘to impose their agenda on every married couple by force of law’.
Author Patricia Morgan, who coined the phrase marriage lite for cohabitee relationships, added: ‘Its purpose is to take traditional notions of marriage – a complementary relationship between a man and a woman, a regenerative relationship – and do away with them.

... it's just a war over words started out of spite by...

Stonewall (charity) [wiki]

Although Stonewall is a lobbying organisation rather than membership organisation, it has diversified into policy development for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people after Labour came to power in 1997. It remains a lobbying organisation rather than a membership organisation. Chief Executive Ben Summerskill has commented that Stonewall "has never pretended to be a democratic member organisation. We have never said we speak for all lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

Ben Summerskill [wiki]

Ben Jeffrey Peter Summerskill OBE (born 6 October 1961, Kent)[2] is a British businessman and journalist, who is the Chief Executive of the UK-based Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual equality organisation Stonewall, now the largest gay equality body in Europe.

Educated at Cobden Road Infants School, Amherst County Primary School, Sevenoaks School, where he held a scholarship, and Merton College, Oxford, where he was an Exhibitioner (holder of a junior scholarship) but which he left after two years without taking a degree. Summerskill evidently disliked Oxford. He later wrote in The Guardian: "I still recall being struck dumb on being shown, as an undergraduate, a note from an Oxford tutor to a successful candidate's father: 'Many thanks for lunch, and the trip in the Rolls.' "

He needs to go back to Oxford and learn his ENGLISH!

Personal Disclosure: He has done a lot of good but on this issue he needs to stop being a :shk:

reply to post by theBigToe


Yup, cause forcing me to change the title I currently have is not touching my rights in any way shape or form...

I

They want the titles of husband and wife banned, not optional...banned.

The hypocrisy of this particular group astounds me...we demand equality! Your rights be damned.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

Marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. Marriage began, as I understand it, as a way for a man to ensure exclusive rights to the woman, including sexual favor and paternity.

That's why some cultures still require a dowry to the father for their daughters hand in marriage.

In modern times, the church only performs a ritual that has no legal bearing at all. The marriage is not legal till you sign a government document. You can be married in the favor of god if you wish, but certain legal rights are not granted unless the government recognizes the union.

That's why I say the government should be out of it except to say that all couples have the right to receive equal treatment and benefit.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
That's why I say the government should be out of it except to say that all couples have the right to receive equal treatment and benefit.

And take away the job of the lawyers? How will they survive.

There should be a signed legal contract any time people join together for what ever reason. It could be a business - marriage - or something else.

But there needs to be a legal contract.