N-Philes :: Forums - Gay marriages in the UK.

12-22-2005, 06:37 PM

bleeper2.0

Livid

Join Date: Aug 2005

Location: London

Posts: 6,339 bleeper2.0 will one day invent something useful made from recycled shoe inserts

Gay marriages in the UK.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...icle%2FShowFull

Quote:

The United Kingdom opened a new era in gay rights as three homosexual couples wed in civil partnership ceremonies on Monday, the first of several hundred nationwide this week - among them Sir Elton John and his partner.

"We are delighted. Here's to many more," said Shannon Sickels, a New York playwright, after she and her Northern Ireland partner, Grainne Close, became the first public celebrants of a legally binding gay partnership at Belfast City Hall.
Scores of family, friends and gay rights activists tossed flowers and rainbow-colored ribbons out of support.

But in keeping with the conservatism of Northern Ireland society, their landmark festivities drew a few dozen Protestant evangelicals who sang hymns and waved "Sodomy is sin" placards.

Gay rights activists countered with their own bullhorn-assisted chants of support. A few donning Hitler-style mustaches shadowed the evangelical crowd waving satirical placards that read, "Earth is flat" and "Bring back slavery."

Northern Ireland, one of the last regions in the United Kingdom to legalize homosexuality in 1982, became the first on Monday to grant gay couples the same legal protections as married heterosexuals - a measure already in force in many other European countries.

Scotland followed on Tuesday, and England and Wales on Wednesday - the day Elton John wed Canadian filmmaker David Furnish.

Furnish, a Canadian-born filmmaker, and John have been together for 12 years. Both have said they understand the implications of their union.

Cameras flickered as the couple - John wearing purple spectacles and a black suit - walked out arm-in-arm, waving to the photographers and fans who huddled together in the cobbled streets around Windsor's town hall, where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles wed in April.

"God instituted human marriage in the Garden of Eden, and it was one man with one woman. God has not changed that," said the Rev. Ian Brown of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, a fundamentalist denomination founded by Northern Ireland's dominant Protestant politician, Ian Paisley.

Such views are more widely held in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Here, Catholics and Protestants sometimes overcome their political hostility to protest jointly on traditional family issues.

Northern Ireland's police force in May reported a surge in gay-hate crimes over the past two years. As same-sex couples arrived at Belfast City Hall, an informal poll on Radio Ulster in Belfast registered about 70 percent opposition to civil partnerships.

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships. Several other EU members have followed suit: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

Also http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d...5/ENTERTAINMENT

Quote:

Elton John, partner exchange vows in England

By Danica Kirka
Associated Press
WINDSOR, England -- Britain's showbiz royalty -- Sir Elton John and David Furnish -- exchanged vows and diamond wedding bands during a ceremony that capped the first week of legalized civil unions in the United Kingdom.

Just married: Singer Sir Elton John (right) and David Furnish posed for photographs Wednesday at the Guildhall in Windsor. - ANDY STUART / AFP/Getty Images

Opting to use the 17th century Guildhall at Windsor where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in April, John and Furnish exchanged a kiss before facing hundreds of photographers and fans on the cobbled streets outside.
John, 58, and Furnish, 43, were among hundreds of same-sex couples marrying in England and Wales on Wednesday, the first day such ceremonies were possible. Others wed earlier this week in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
"I think it's amazing -- it's brilliant," said Tim Alcock, 43, one of the onlookers.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking to reporters at a news conference, congratulated the couple for exercising their newfound legal right. Activists saw the union as a watershed moment for gay rights.
"This will give hope to millions of isolated, vulnerable lesbian and gay people, especially those living in repressive and homophobic countries," said Peter Tatchell, spokesman for the gay rights group OutRage.
The new law -- passed last year -- allows civil ceremonies that will give same-sex couples the same social security, tax, pension and inheritance rights as married couples.
Furnish, a Canadian-born filmmaker, and the pop star have been together for 12 years. Both have said they understand the implications of their union.
"Being such a high-profile couple and the fact that we decided to do it straight away does carry a certain message," John was quoted as saying by Attitude magazine. "I'm doing this first and foremost because I want to do it for David and I want to be with David for the rest of my life, but I also want to do it to say that (the civil union law) shouldn't be something that just sits there in law. It should be embraced."

I wonder what Pojo and Robjomak think of this. Blair supported the war but he has a bad habit of supporting abortions in the third world, euthanasia and same sex unions.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by caster13

If that makes me a douche, than call me the king and master of all douchery. Actually, just call me "Your Highness".

12-22-2005, 06:40 PM	#2
Iris Highly, I say Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ireland Posts: 5,103	Wa-hey I believe they're going to become legal in Ireland soon as well. __________________

12-22-2005, 06:44 PM	#3
Dawson Mr. Tambourine Man Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 10,440	I'm happy for Elton. He makes great music. __________________

12-22-2005, 06:45 PM	#4
Robjomak still going strong Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 8,019	Hey I give Blair credit because he's for the war - I've already been through how the entire Middle East scenario is Britain's fault, he's holding his country accountable and I like that - and he's honest. But I don't approve of the socialism for a minute. Oh, and this is characteristically retarded. Government benefits for everyone, as long as you stick something into something of theirs and declare your love and loyalty (until your first little spat - then on to divorce court!), you're married. And just a sec, how did this happen if 70% of people oppose it? O rite liberals don't use democracy when it is inconvenient.

12-22-2005, 06:47 PM

Xavius

Sabor de Soledad

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: NM

Posts: 32,274 Xavius needs a hobby

God I love Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernBelle

Tarnation, just a goshdarn minute. How did this happen if 100% of people oppose those coloreds and their sass gettin' the right to marry my pure white daughter?

Oh, right yankees don't use democracy when it is inconvernant. Inconvertible. Oh however those high-falutin' types say it.

Sad.

__________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

12-22-2005, 06:51 PM	#6
Aidan_702 lolsassinator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Co.Cork Posts: 4,336	Yay, freedom. Yeah freedom to kill yourselfs in a corrupt socialist state[/robjomak] __________________ THE G IS FOR G

12-22-2005, 06:53 PM	#7
Xavius Sabor de Soledad Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NM Posts: 32,274	Europe will be childless and in a state of pure corrupted decline soon enough. [/robjomak] __________________ I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

12-22-2005, 07:28 PM

Robjomak

still going strong

Join Date: Jan 2005

Location: Philadelphia

Posts: 8,019 Robjomak might want to think about buying stock in N-Philes

Xavius, there is a difference between shooting someone for doing something, and bitching when the government won't subsidize something. People being hunted down like animals in the South for offending the ruling class is wrong. People not wanting to subsidize sodomy is not.

Quote:

Europe will be childless and in a state of pure corrupted decline soon enough.

What are you talking about, there are pleanty of Muslims living and having kids on government money and raising them to hate/bomb the West in Europe.

The corrupted decline part is right tho. It's already true anyway.

And I'm not going to dignify Aidan with a direct response because his sarcasm made no sense.

12-22-2005, 07:44 PM	#9
Hero rave on Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,765	You've got to admit though Rob, Xavius' post was pretty funny [the first one; the second was pretty lame].

12-22-2005, 07:50 PM	#10
Paul Weller Lakitu Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11,516	These people support Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong thought. They should be killed. __________________ We're all just hapless victims of knowledge and learning and such The man you thought you licked 'em but you choked in the clutch Brent Black, you said it yourself it's an ethereal kind of flu A Mac virus reveals the plot of the fiendish Fu Man Chu

12-22-2005, 08:07 PM	#11
BEan Microsoft certified Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On a rooftop with a bullhorn. Posts: 10,871	The didn't ban or restrict hetrosexual marriages. __________________ The sounds of DKL screaming and yelling in agony is magical and relaxing.

12-22-2005, 08:22 PM	#12
Deacon anti-social commentary Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 27,461	haha england is gay. btw god bless america. __________________ CA Blog: I was a SEGA kid

12-22-2005, 10:27 PM

#13

Xavius

Sabor de Soledad

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: NM

Posts: 32,274 Xavius needs a hobby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robjomak

Because lord knows lesbians can't live without their sodomy.

__________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

12-22-2005, 11:02 PM	#14
Deacon anti-social commentary Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 27,461	Maybe it's time to bring up the fact that heterosexuals can engage in sodomy. Is it? Or should we wait awhile or something. __________________ CA Blog: I was a SEGA kid

12-22-2005, 11:35 PM	#15
Robjomak still going strong Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 8,019	It sounds cooler when they start with the same letter. Sheesh. ...Jesus is this the best you can do to argue? Repeat some stupid criticism you know wasn't the point of my argument? Government subsidizes marriage because it maintains societal stability and results in children. Government need not subsidize gay marriage because it certainly doesn't result in children and considering the widespread contempt we're seeing from the public, it doesn't help societal stability. Do I have to spell it out every freaking time or are you just going to keep harping on this irrelevant point?

12-22-2005, 11:41 PM	#16
BEan Microsoft certified Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On a rooftop with a bullhorn. Posts: 10,871	Rob: Not every heterosexual relationship results in kids. If I got married, do I have to have kids? No. Some couples just can't or don't want kids. There is nothing wrong with it. Why do you have to lean on the financial aspects of marriages? Marriage is all about 2 people solidifying thier love for each other, and thatst the universal defenition. __________________ The sounds of DKL screaming and yelling in agony is magical and relaxing.

12-23-2005, 10:34 AM

#17

Xavius

Sabor de Soledad

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: NM

Posts: 32,274 Xavius needs a hobby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robjomak

It sounds cooler when they start with the same letter. Sheesh.

...Jesus is this the best you can do to argue? Repeat some stupid criticism you know wasn't the point of my argument? Government subsidizes marriage because it maintains societal stability and results in children. Government need not subsidize gay marriage because it certainly doesn't result in children and considering the widespread contempt we're seeing from the public, it doesn't help societal stability. Do I have to spell it out every freaking time or are you just going to keep harping on this irrelevant point?

Who says gay people can't have or adopt children? You don't disallow barren women the right to get married nor sterile men. You don't disallow elderly heterosexuals from getting married because they can't have children? You don't disallow people with terminal cancer to get married just because their time is up. You don't disallow heterosexuals from getting married who choose never to have children. You don't disallow people who have too many children as it is, or even people who can't take care of their own children.

This is a really discriminative argument if you ask me, but my argument has always been that most people are against gay marriage because they hate thinking of the idea of gay men buggering each other.

__________________

I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!

Last edited by Xavius : 12-23-2005 at 10:39 AM.

12-23-2005, 01:49 PM

#18

Pokemorpher1

Gehl Powah!!!

Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Virginia

Posts: 2,061 Pokemorpher1 posts a lot in Show Yourself

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robjomak

And just a sec, how did this happen if 70% of people oppose it?

We all know informal radio polls are the most accurate.[/sarcasm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robjomak

O rite liberals don't use democracy when it is inconvenient.

Well, wouldn't you want to ban abortion even though the majority seems to be okay with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robjomak

Government subsidizes marriage because it maintains societal stability and results in children. Government need not subsidize gay marriage because it certainly doesn't result in children and considering the widespread contempt we're seeing from the public, it doesn't help societal stability. Do I have to spell it out every freaking time or are you just going to keep harping on this irrelevant point?

If that were true, then a couple would only get financial benefits per child.

__________________

MGM Bill and End RIC

12-23-2005, 01:58 PM	#19
Andrew Look Out Below! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland Posts: 3,478	I don't have a whole lot to say about the situation. So gays marry. NOW Will you stop bragging about your boyfriend/girlfriend? __________________ When people look like ants- pull When ants look like people- pray

12-23-2005, 02:05 PM

#20

Robjomak

still going strong

Join Date: Jan 2005

Location: Philadelphia

Posts: 8,019 Robjomak might want to think about buying stock in N-Philes

Quote:

From BEan to Xavius

Guys! We've been through this before! The vast majority of traditional marriages result in children. The remainder (harkening back to that societal stability thing I talked about) serve as an example and an encouragement for other people to get married. Obviously there is going to be variation, but marriage in the archetype is between a man and a woman with the intent to have kids. "To have kids" doesn't always work, but it should be the intent. And that is totally impossible in a gay marriage, in fact it doesn't even reflect the same model that makes children possible.

And you know the adoption argument is moot because you don't have to be married to raise or adopt kids.

Quote:

This is a really discriminative argument if you ask me, but my argument has always been that most people are against gay marriage because they hate thinking of the idea of gay men buggering each other.

Well yeah. Most people are against illegal immigration because they hate Mexicans. Most people vote democrat because they hate white or more successful people.
Most animal rights activists are so because they hate or can't trust people.

I'm presenting a coherent rationale rather than just hate. That's the goal in politics is it not?

Quote:

Well, wouldn't you want to ban abortion even though the majority seems to be okay with it?

This is such a retarded argument. Do you know the basis of abortion law in this country? Because of the Supreme Court, acting AGAINST the vast majority of people I might add, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for states to ban abortion. That's it. There is a Constitutional right to abortion according to those lunatics. The question isn't even ban abortion across the board, it's properly interpret the Constitution and LET THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY DECIDE.

Of course I think you'll be unpleasantly surprsied at how many states collectively flip the liberals off and would proceed to ban abortion were they given the power to democratically decide anything. But of course, Big Brother knows better, and is willing to twist and taint the Constitution to serve his purposes.

Quote:

If that were true, then a couple would only get financial benefits per child.

Traditional marriage in itself helps to encourage more traditional marriage and thus more kids. It's like DS games with download play. Offer download play and you aren't getting the exact result of a DS game sold, but people who can now see the game in action will want it for themselves. It's a brilliant marketing ploy.