equality blooms with spring, pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009

No civil union for straight pair.

Heterosexual couple have been refused permission to register for a civil partnership.

_46794056_008324159-1.jpg


Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle said they want to challenge "discriminatory" UK laws which restrict civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

They plan legal action after their application was denied at Islington Register Office, north London.

A spokesman for Islington Council said the pair's request was refused because "the council must follow the law".

UK law permits only heterosexual couples to marry; same-sex couples can form civil partnerships.

Mr Freeman and Miss Doyle, both 25, from Islington, have been in a relationship for four years.

Their bid was supported by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Mr Tatchell said: "The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is disciminatory and offensive."

He added: "I applaud their challenge to this unjust legislation."

Actual news item or parody?
 
:hmm: I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?





And it's ok, I don't expect a, ahem, straight answer. :hug:

Why didn't you just cohabitate, did you not get Nathan's memo? That's what folks like you are suppose to do...
 
Well, then you definitely wouldn't want him watching your kids. I bet he doesn't even know CPR.

And if he tried to sing them a lullaby, you just know he'd go into that screechy thing he does and make the wee children cry.
 
Melon, after five something years of reading and/or responding to your posts - I've decided I really like you. Even though "AEON" likes to pick a side and argue it to death as best he can - "the man behind the man behind the man" - really thinks you have much to offer this world. And I am happy that despite the hostile world in which you face - that you have left room for faith and blessing. Your mind is a gift - keep at it!

Happy Thanksgiving :)
 
Melon, after five something years of reading and/or responding to your posts - I've decided I really like you. Even though "AEON" likes to pick a side and argue it to death as best he can - "the man behind the man behind the man" - really thinks you have much to offer this world. And I am happy that despite the hostile world in which you face - that you have left room for faith and blessing. Your mind is a gift - keep at it!

Happy Thanksgiving :)

Not sure how to respond....errr.....thanks! :wink: I appreciate our generally respectful and productive discussions.

Happy Thanksgiving, as well!
 
:hmm: I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

Nothing yet?
 
Nothing yet?

You know, Martha, some of us are kind of too busy with holidays to check the blue crack exhaustively.

To answer your post in full:

None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.

Actually, I've pointed out that some marriages don't produce children, and that there are different ways to form families. I merely pointed out that for the vast majority of people, marriage is a precursor (or a motivator) for having children.

So I'm going to presume that your question

Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

is directed at someone else.
 
And yet, some of those ways of forming families aren't as legitimate to you as others. For instance, families were the parents are gay. Those families don't deserve legally married parents. According to you.

I'm pretty sure I haven't commented on the subject of gay marriage in this thread. Again, I'm of a very mixed opinion on the issue. I'm far more concerned with some of the underlying issues that have been stated on this board; it's those issues I have concerns with, and those I've addressed -- specifically, the crucial role fathers play in the family.

Determining the cultural definition of what is and is not a legitimate family unit is a far more complicated matter that I'm willing to let be decided by the legal process, the legislature, and the court of public opinion. (Though I certainly have my own opinions on the subject, and have no problem sharing them.)
 
I'm pretty sure I haven't commented on the subject of gay marriage in this thread. Again, I'm of a very mixed opinion on the issue.
Yet, you'll take the anti side pretty consistently, hiding behind The Children.


This single word in this sentence says a lot. You're happy in your hegemony, secure in your majority rights, and unwilling to loosen the grasp you have.
 
:hmm: I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

Anyone else?
 
My question for you Martha is, why do you care what those people think? Unless I am misreading your posts, I don't see why you should be concerned about how some people see your marriage.

But to answer your question: marriage is a union between two people. It's a point where two people decide to live for someone and not just themselves. So, in that case, yes your marriage is a legitimate.
 
My question for you Martha is, why do you care what those people think? Unless I am misreading your posts, I don't see why you should be concerned about how some people see your marriage.

But to answer your question: marriage is a union between two people. It's a point where two people decide to live for someone and not just themselves. So, in that case, yes your marriage is a legitimate.

She's making a point that you apparently missed. She's trying to say that if her marriage is legitimate (it is), so too should gay marriages. Neither marriage will result in biological children, yet one is allowed and one isn't. This perplexes Martha. That's the point.
 
My question for you Martha is, why do you care what those people think? Unless I am misreading your posts, I don't see why you should be concerned about how some people see your marriage.

But to answer your question: marriage is a union between two people. It's a point where two people decide to live for someone and not just themselves. So, in that case, yes your marriage is a legitimate.

She's making a point that you apparently missed. She's trying to say that if her marriage is legitimate (it is), so too should gay marriages. Neither marriage will result in biological children, yet one is allowed and one isn't. This perplexes Martha. That's the point.

Philly's got it. :)
 
I'm far more concerned with some of the underlying issues that have been stated on this board; it's those issues I have concerns with, and those I've addressed -- specifically, the crucial role fathers play in the family.



who's denied that fathers are important to their children?

why would you bring up such a concern in a thread about marriage equality?
 
Yet, you'll take the anti side pretty consistently, hiding behind The Children.

Huh. I thought that I had actually discussed things like human biological and sociological development and quoted statistics and facts and stuff. But, you know, whatever.


This single word in this sentence says a lot. You're happy in your hegemony, secure in your majority rights, and unwilling to loosen the grasp you have.

What part of "Determining the cultural definition of what is and is not a legitimate family unit is a far more complicated matter that I'm willing to let be decided by the legal process, the legislature, and the court of public opinion. (Though I certainly have my own opinions on the subject, and have no problem sharing them.)" is difficult for you to understand? Laws change, attitudes shift, the courts amend and revise. I'm willing to submit to those. So I'm not sure what you're on about.
 
Actually, I didn't bring up any concern; you did. You were very specific with your question about gender roles in parenting. So... [shrug]



right. no one's answered the question -- what is it that only men can do that women cannot ever do.

sure, we all think that father's are important to their own families, but what is it about his gender -- and gender only -- that would be impossible to be filled by two women?

so, again, a week later, the question still stands.
 
A classmate from my grad program runs a blog on Uganda news. Her most recent post is about how its Parliament is looking to pass an anti-gay bill which will criminalize homosexuality in ways that are despicable.

Homosexuality has always been illegal in Uganda, due to my favorite country’s (dated) colonial law, but this bill practically makes that draconian law look like a pride parade. (The current law classifies homosexuality as a “crime against the order of nature.”)

Some low points:
-The bill would nullify any international treaties that don’t have an explicit anti-homosexuality sentiment.
-People engaging in homosexuality will face life imprisonment. Those found spreading HIV through homosexual acts will be put to death, as will those who engage in homosexuality with minors and the disabled.
-Those with knowledge of homosexuals living in Uganda and don’t report the individual to the police within 24 hours can face three years in jail.
-Ugandans in the diaspora in gay relationships could be extradited back to Uganda and put in jail for life.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill: I Actually Speak Up � From Kampala to New York

And if you don't believe her, here's a news link:

Harper slams Uganda's anti-gay bill

Reading this makes you realize that despite not being allowed to legally marry, homosexuals have it a lot easier in the U.S. than in many parts of the world. I can only hope Ugandans wake up and realize what they are doing is totally barbaric.
 
What part of "Determining the cultural definition of what is and is not a legitimate family unit is a far more complicated matter that I'm willing to let be decided by the legal process, the legislature, and the court of public opinion. (Though I certainly have my own opinions on the subject, and have no problem sharing them.)" is difficult for you to understand?


You're not willing to "let" it happen, except when you're ready.


And the best part, nathan? You never answered my question. :)
 
:hmm: I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

Still waiting for AEON or INDY to weigh in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom