equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[INDY500]

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

No civil union for straight pair.

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

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?

[BVS]

[BVS]

Originally Posted by martha

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.

Why didn't you just cohabitate, did you not get Nathan's memo? That's what folks like you are suppose to do...

[martha]

[BVS]

Marriage = kids

If you don't like it, don't get married.

If you can't have kids, get divorced.

It's all right there in his memo...

[diamond]

He said it, not me:

Lambert: I'm......... not a baby sitter

[corianderstem]

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

He said it, not me:

Lambert: I'm......... not a baby sitter

I read that earlier and thought about you

[AEON]

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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! I appreciate our generally respectful and productive discussions.

Happy Thanksgiving, as well!

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

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?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

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.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

and that there are different ways to form families.

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.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

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.)

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

let

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.

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

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?

[Pearl]

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.

[Jive Turkey]

It smells like dead horses in here

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.