And you are entitled to your views.

Sadly, modern society seems to be forcing marriage (till death do us part and all that) into just another way of formalising a partnership. How many marriages these days last until one of the pair drops of their perch?

The same can be said of civil partnerships, of course!

Well that was what marriage was all about.. formalising a partnership.

Yes, but with a religious bias. Like I said earlier, if I want to formalise a partnership what have the God Squad got to do with it?

They have nothing to do with it if you go to a registrar rather than a church.

Fair enough, but how is that any different to the civil partnership. Why not just call it like it is?

We're not going to agree, so perhaps we should move on - or let someone else argue about it.

It isn't.

Nothing but in the 12th century they muscled in and made it compulsory that the union was blessed by God.
Its just now in the 21st century that we have marriage as defined by a union between mand and woman and a civil partnership between woman & woman or man & man.
These people arent making a noble moral stand for equality. They are pure and simple publicity hounds.

I was married in a registrars office as the last thing I wanted in my formalisation of my partnership was anything to do with God and thus in eyes of the more religious orthodox peeps, as there was no Priest/Vicar/Goat conducting the ceremony, I am in fact not married.

Unless one of the pair dies young, not as many as... say, 20 years ago.

People, in my opinion, are too quick to get married these days and too quick to shout divorce. They should get lessons at school, as there paren... and let's stop there before I go into full blown rant mode.

Theoretically, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that they can conceive children with the blessing of their God.

As gay couples can't conceive children through their love and sexual union, they can't technically marry.

Austria is probably an extreme example, but, if you are catholic, you can't have sex before marriage and the only ground to get married is to start a family!

There is no way that a gay couple could fulfil that requirement.

I think the civil marriage and the civil partnership is just semantics. I can see why churches would reject hold matrimony for gays, as they can't have children; but civil partnership and civil marriage are essentially the same thing, but as marriage is defined, in the English language, as the union of a man and a woman, you can't currently use it to describe the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman...

Get the English language definition changed and you can use marriage...

What does it matter what other people think? A registry office marriage is valid in the eyes of the law.



Hear hear I agree but some marriages to have a very good reason for ending where people have no choice.



Umm gay people can have children and lots of them do.

Personally I think the laws surrounding marriage are very outdated and should be changed. Rod Stewart put it perfectly and suggested all marriages licences should be reviewed every 5 years but that won't happen as it will put solicitors out of business. I am delighted that the law at least is recognising that gay couples do want to be seen as couples and anything that is done to leaglise their unions is fine in my book. It's a shame they are not recognised world wide.

No they can't... 2 men don't have a womb, 2 women don't have any sperm to fertilise their eggs... Yes, they can adopt or use some form of donor sperm or surrogate mother, but they can't even attempt to create a baby themselves, which is what holy matrimony is supposed to represent.

Yes, hetro couples can have problems conceiving and require external help as well, but at least they can try and have children. But 2 men or 2 women can't try and have a child together.


I think the laws are outdated, in terms of gay couples. But 5 year marriage licence? I wouldn't enter into a relationship, let alone marriage, if I didn't think it was going to last "forever". Yes, it can and does go wrong. But to actually go into the relationship with the idea that it isn't going to last, I think THAT is just wrong.

Physically no they can't but the physicality does not mean people can't have children. You wouldn't say to a heterosexual coouple you can't have children if they were reproductively challenged and you wouldn't say to an adoptive Mother you're not a Mum. In this day and age traditional conception is not the only choice for straight or gay couples.



Unfortunately plenty of people enter in to marriage knowing it won't last forever. Most marrieges do end in divorce (is it 1 in 3 marriages?). The 5 year licence was an idea suggested by someone. The laws to do with marriage are unlikely to change in my lifetime. Whatever we think is wrong or right society is changing and the laws should change too.

But a heterosexual couple can try and have a baby. For the church the whole point of holy matrimony is to conceive children in a union blessed by God. If they can't have children, they can also use the alternatives, like I said before.

There is nothing to stop heterosexual or gay couples from adopting or using alternative methods, but only a heterosexual couple have the possibility to create life without external help. That is the biggest problem gay couples have, when it comes to the church.

For civil weddings, you have to change the dictionary definition of marriage in order to call the gay civil partnership a marriage. That heterosexual couples can't call their marriage a partnership, if they want to, is silly though.


It seems to defeat the point of marriage, to go into it, expecting it not to last...

Exactly correct.

I'll say it again - given the myriad of much more important evils, inequalities and sufferings all around us, do we have nothing better to worry about?

• There are more slaves now than there ever were during the slave trade
• The planet's climate is about to go pop - large parts of several countries will end up underwater
• Religious extremists are foaming at the mouth and the US, UK and Israeli governments insist on poking them with sticks
• Unemployment is at stupid levels
• The banks are getting away with stealing
• MPs are getting away with fraud
• Thousands are dying due to famine, drought and preventable diseases
• Soldiers are dying in wars that have served only to allow Dick Cheney et al to carve up the world's oil fields
• The transport infrastructure in this country has regressed to a pre-Victorian state
• The Conservatives will get in at the next election
• The Primary and Secondary Sector industries in this country are all but dead
• The far right are in danger of getting a political foothold because of the ineptitude of the main parties
• Hospitals are places where people get ill, not well
• Large parts of many town centres are boarded up

Frankly we've got vastly more important things to do than change the name of a ceremony because certain people can't get a grip.

[Edited to say:] Sorry to sound harsh btw - I just can't stand seeing important issues ignored because someone gets their knickers in a twist.

Well said that person.............¡¡¡¡¡