Gay marriage becomes legal in England and Wales

I hope it becomes legal in Japan so I can marry my partner.

let me be first in rising a glass of champers to you both.

EXCELLENT ! Like Eddy Murphy said: " That means MORE girls for ME" .

WA4TKG...lololol I will have that glass of champers now lololol

Good to see some nations moving forward. Congrats! and congrats to those taking the plunge.

Good news. As one cynic remarked, it's high time everyone was given the opportunity to be miserable.

Since the dawn of time and the creation of the first human beings, marriage has been a sacred union between one man and one woman, who form a family through their union and the procreation of children. There is no earthly reason to change that. Homosexuals have been discriminated against and brutalised in the past, but these days there is more tolerance and in many places they are free to live their lives in peace, and practice their lifestyle choice. Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK several years ago, which gave same sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples with regard to property, etc. Why the need for homosexual "marriage?"

Same sex couples cannot physically procreate children, so they will always be different from married heterosexual couples. They can never be "equal" in that respect. Like it or not, the dominant world view of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex couples have the right to live in peace, free from harassment like the rest of mankind, in many places. However, the constant stream of "in your face" aggressive attitudes, flaunting their sexuality and lifestyle, can and does put many people off them and their lifestyle choices.

Redefining traditional marriage in any country is not a good thing.

According to phychologists and sociologists, gays are 3 to 5% of a population. How did such a small group of people become such a big topic of social discourse? Homosexuality is a sin of convenience. It is the one sin that 95% of a population are not going to commit, so it is made into a huge sin. Priests and ministers can yell all they want, and not worry about offending their audience. However, talk about glutony or greed, everyone would walk out. But they have already lost the cultural and moral battle, that is why they are squaking so loud now. It is their death throws. US's favorite host is a lesbian (Ms. Degeneris), etc. Marriage is a natural progression. Waiting for it to happen here in Japan. Unfortunately there has never been cultural discrimination (looks at all the popular gay singers) to galvanize gays to action.

'Since the dawn of time and the creation of the first human beings, marriage has been a sacred union between one man and one woman,'

I didn't think it was possible to make so many mistakes in a single sentence. 'Creation' of human beings? Scientifically preposterous. Marriage has been a 'sacred union' and between 'one man and one woman'? Historically inaccurate and not even true in many societies today.

Quite right too. Why should it still be okay to openly discriminate against homosexuals? Marriage is not a sacred union of any type unless you are a religious extremist. Less than 3% of Brits bother with church and we're mainly Anglican-atheist. Marriage is a partnership and a commitment between two people, which should not be denied to any two people regardless of their sex. I'm glad my country has moved forward and ruled to end this discrimination.

@hampton

It is not really a case of discrimination it is a case f society changing and moving to a more open minded place. Would be better for British people and the government to take as much or more notice of the plight of the nation. I would have though the inequalities between rich and poor and the fact that people have to use food banks to survive would be more important. This is a good distraction where the Tory elite can pretend to be open and caring people in the country that is now a dump.

**@realist

Redefining traditional marriage in any country is not a good thing.

Because......?

Because it involves change maybe? I wonder if 'the dawn of time' and 'creation' were also events that redefined what had traditionally gone before?

And hasn't marriage been redefined enough in last century? What was once a union between two people that was also an agreement between families/tribes/communities for the aquisition of money, land and power has, in recent times, been redefined into a purely romantic union.

Unfortunately there has never been cultural discrimination (looks at all the popular gay singers) to galvanize gays to action.

Mmm you obviously don't know the Japanese then, or you've been living in Tokyo. Most Japanese are too timid to fight for anything, let alone for something as sensitive as this.

Call me a traditionalist. I am not spiritual I am not homophobic. To me marriage is between a man and woman.

What I see down the road as humanity "Progresses". Can a bisexual have a male and female spouse? Step one. From here we can "Progress" further but one step at a time.

First of all, congratulations to the newly-weds in England and Wales.

gokai-wo-maneku (face one):

I hope it becomes legal in Japan so I can marry my partner.

I wouldn't hold my breath. A recent survey showed that nearly half were against same-sex marriage. The 'good' news is that the younger generation and women were more accepting. Here's to hoping that the old fogies die off soon. As far as Asia is concerned, I see Taiwan, Vietnam and Nepal way ahead of Japan in future progress on the legal rights of gays.

gokai-wo-maneku (face two):

According to phychologists and sociologists, gays are 3 to 5% of a population. How did such a small group of people become such a big topic of social discourse?

That's like saying foreigners in Japan make up only 2% of the total population but should just shut up and put up with any crap thrown in their faces.

Homosexuality is a sin of convenience.

Yeah, and in MY opinion, bigotry is a sin. Look, if you are against same sex marriage, then just don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's as if you enjoy peeping into other people's bedroom.

in many places they are free to live their lives in peace, and practice their lifestyle choice.

First, please tell me when you DECIDED to be straight (I'm talking to the straight half of you)? Secondly, in countries where same sex marriage is legal, gays and lesbians still get physically abused and...wait for it...murderded because of their sexuality. I've never heard of anyone being killed for being straight.

W4ATKG:

EXCELLENT ! Like Eddy Murphy said: " That means MORE girls for ME" .

Does that include lesbians?!

realist:

Since the dawn of time and the creation of the first human beings, marriage has been a sacred union between one man and one woman, who form a family through their union and the procreation of children.

Oh pleeez! If we're talking about Adam and Eve, then there's a helluva lot of incest going on! Marriage, sacred? I don't get that impression when I see people like Britney Spears and a whole host of other people getting married and divorced willy-nilly. Elizabeth Taylor really did take advantage of this 'sacred union' stuff! And please tell me why on earth so many Japanese celebs get pregnant, and THEN decide to get married (and divorced 2 years down the road). And I sure as hell didn't see any babies being produced during Hamasaki Ayumi and Utada Hikari's first marriages? Perhaps they should have had their heads hit with the bible.

flaunting their sexuality

What, you mean all that flaunting you see in music videos and those half naked women at carnivals? Yes, very gay!

Go back,in history to the Greek and Roman Empire,men were together as was the women,So why is,is everyone making such a big deal over a gay marriage taking place in today's world. Just get married without broad casting all over the news. Do what the straight,people do send out invitation,like to family and friends. I will never understand why the Press all over the world has to make this a major story. And for the record,history tell us Alexander The Great had a male lover.

Ha! When marriage became a legally recognized institution, the religious people cheered. Now that governments have expanded the legal definition of marriage in accordance with constitutional principles of equality and justice, they whine and moan. Well, make up your minds. If you want marriage to be a sacred institution in accordance with your religious beliefs only, you need to petition to have marriage removed from the government domain. If you want it in the government domain, you need to stop trying to force your religious beliefs down our throats.

But don't worry. You are still free to deny gays marriages at your church, temple, mosque, synagogue or what have you, and you can say its not a marriage according to your god, gods or beliefs. You just have to recognize the marriage for legal purposes is all. So quit your griping!

I just wonder what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership. If the legal rights are the same, then what's the difference? I mean in Japan a marriage for most people is just handing in a paper at the kuyakusho. Seems like a pretty big fuss being made over semantics. Unless ... the real agenda is to try to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages. That would be where the gay lobby loses my support because at that point, they attempt to infringe upon the rights of others. The holy books of all the major religions contain clear prohibitions on homosexuality. Whether any of us agree with that or not is beside the point. People of faith have a right to continue their religious traditions, and the various clergy certainly have the right to refuse to marry anyone based on the tenets of their particular faith. Furthermore, I cannot understand why any gay couple would even wish to be married by a religion that condemns their lifestyle. I mean if the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever agrees to marry gay couples then great, everyone is happy. But as the article says, the COE is unhappy about this and has applied for an received an exemption. I wonder if that is a problem for gay people, or if they recognize that the rights of the membership of the COE are just as important as their own rights.

But they have already lost the cultural and moral battle.

Cultural battle, absolutely. Lost that one decades ago, and not just on the gay marriage front. Moral battle? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on which moral battle has been lost. Seems to me that there is very little in the way of moral thought in our societies these days.

@Hidingout Your rambling mail is a perfect example of the fact that those who oppose gay marriage have no clear moral grounds to oppose it apart from 'tradition' or trampling on the 'tradition' of others. You're a smart person. Give us a clear moral argument as to why this is wrong aside from falling back on the beliefs of those who hold to ancient books. Give us a 2014 argument.

You misunderstand. Im not opposed at all. I honestly dont understand the real world difference between a marriage and a civil partnership. If you know, please explain it to me. I note the popularity of the word 'partner' in the gay/lesbian community and the use of quotation marks in this article to refer to 'husband and husband'. As I said above, seems like a semantic argument to me.

As for your comment about 'ancient books', Ill refrain from trashing the beliefs of others. I simply believe that a religion should not be forced to flout its own doctrine any more than a gay person should be forced to deny his sexuality.

Same sex couples cannot physically procreate children, so they will always be different from married heterosexual couples. They can never be "equal" in that respect

Neither can some heterosexual couples. Does that mean they should be denied the right to marry too? Will they always be "different" from other heterosexual couples? Is the sole function of marriage purely for the creation of children, and so, if it cant be done, people should have no right to marry?

Yes. Sounds as ridiculous as it is.

I honestly dont understand the real world difference between a marriage and a civil partnership. If you know, please explain it to me.

If they were the same, then it would be no big issue to change to heterosexual couples only being allowed civil partnerships, and homosexuals being allowed to marry.

Imagine the stink that would cause. Then try to justify allowing homosexuals only civil partnerships.

Why does anyone care about this. Not as if homosexuality is being made compulsory.

If they were the same, then it would be no big issue to change to heterosexual couples only being allowed civil partnerships, and homosexuals being allowed to marry.

Wow thanks, that really addresses my question.

Then try to justify allowing homosexuals only civil partnerships.

I think I made it clear that I'm not trying to "justify" anything. Why so belligerent?

Why so belligerent?

Strangerland was being belligerent at all. There was no assumption that you want to justify it, it was just a "suppose you were trying to justify it" sort of a statement. And its a very good point.

And thinking on it, really, the government should only do civil unions. Marriage should be a social and religious construct, and the government should have no part of it. Its the only way to appease all and still have equality.

Strangerland was being belligerent at all. There was no assumption that you want to justify it, it was just a "suppose you were trying to justify it" sort of a statement. And its a very good point.

Agree to disagree. The assumption is there in the unstated subject of the sentence, and in the choice of the word "justify". That is counter to what I had explicitly posted just above. Some people just like spoiling for an argument I guess.

And thinking on it, really, the government should only do civil unions. Marriage should be a social and religious construct, and the government should have no part of it. Its the only way to appease all and still have equality.

Now that is more like addressing my question. That's the way I look at the situation too, and I was wondering why my view was so wrong. Is a civil union, as you say, different from a "marriage" in any legal sense? Seems to me they are the same. No doubt marriage (as understood by western nations) was constructed based on religious doctrine in an era when most people were religious. Clearly society has moved away from that. I know heterosexual couples who have chosen to marry at city hall or in Vegas precisely because they have such a strong dislike for the religious aspects of marriage. So what's with the tempest in a teapot over terminology?

To my mind, a problem arises when gay lobby groups attempt to force religious organizations to officiate at/sanction a ceremony that makes a mockery of their doctrine. Is that a fair thought or not?

It amazes me how some people try to justify their discrimination and oppression by virtue of 'tradition'. It use to be tradition to keep slaves, and to keep women in the kitchen. Tradition is a good thing when it's not used to oppress others.

Wow thanks, that really addresses my question.

It didn't answer the question the way you wanted, but it points out that there is a difference, even if it doesn't expressly state what the difference is. So yes, it really did address your question.

I think I made it clear that I'm not trying to "justify" anything.

It was an open comment to anyone, not just you.

The fact is, denial to homosexuals of a status that is open to heterosexuals is not defensible on any moral or traditional grounds. There has never been an excuse given that could not be shot down, because there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, so any oppression is based on the oppressors own discomfort, rather than on any valid reasoning.

It's about time! Congratulations to those who can now get married. Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a lifestyle choice. The fact that the majority of people are not religious or do not respect or practice religion nor religious prejudice never occurs to those who preach it. Like gays, they too are minorities. To put it mildly, this move by the UK government is a slap in the face for them. Whining now won't help them. They know they have lost. Any step which moves forward our human rights is a good thing. I do also wonder why people make anti-gay comments. The first thing to happen is that almost everyone suspects such people are likely gay or that they hold minority (i.e. unpopular or uninformed) views. Why not just keep your mouth shut eh?

And thinking on it, really, the government should only do civil unions. Marriage should be a social and religious construct, and the government should have no part of it. Its the only way to appease all and still have equality.

Removing government from marriage is the only way to end the culture war over this issue. The consensus has been broken over what constitutes marriage. Despite what the law says a large number of people will continue to oppose it. This includes a significant minority of young adults. Marriage should only be considered a religious institution. From this understanding government can then expand civil partnerships to include any two or more people who wish to enter into a legal contract. Even with homosexual marriage there is still discrimination against other potential partnerships.What some are now celebrating as 'marriage equality' is in fact still a discriminatory institution. Bisexuals still cannot marry who they love, two siblings cannot enter into a legal agreement and receive the same benefits of marriage. The 'victory' for homosexual marriage is in fact a defeat for marriage itself.

discrimination and oppression

Stop being so deliberately obtuse. No one (in the Western world) is being discriminated against or oppressed for being gay. You concede that the rights and liberties under a civil union are the same as those conferred by marriage. So there is no difference. Its a semantic argument at best. And at worst, its an attempt to infringe upon the liberties of religious institutions. Why be so smug about exercising your rights at the expense of the rights of others?

If the gay lobby was really so concerned about discrimination and oppression they would start doing the grass roots work in countries where gay people are actually oppressed and discriminated against rather than arguing about terminology used in the West when they already enjoy all the same rights as anyone else.

I do also wonder why people make anti-gay comments.

Stop exaggerating. There aren't any "anti-gay" comments in this thread.

Why not just keep your mouth shut eh?

Sounds like excellent advice for people whining over semantics.

Bisexuals still cannot marry who they love

The definition of "bisexual" is not a person who loves both a man and a woman at the same time. Its just that gender is not a barrier to their sexual interests. Bisexuals can and do fall in love with and marry one person at a time just like everybody else.

And no, you don't need to be bisexual to desire a polygamous or polyandrous marriage.

And that brings up another point about these religious folks. Polygamy is rife in the Old Testament and Jesus said he was not come to change the law. But how many Christians would support allowing polygamy? And isn't a key reason why its not allowed by the government based on religious thought?

No one (in the Western world) is being discriminated against or oppressed for being gay.

Tell that to any gay person in the western world who isn't allowed to get married. They are most definitely being discriminated and oppressed.

You concede that the rights and liberties under a civil union are the same as those conferred by marriage.

Actually, I didn't. But skipping that point:

So there is no difference. Its a semantic argument at best.

If that were the case, then why are some people ok with gay civil unions, but not gay marriage? The difference is not semantic at best, the difference is that by not allowing gay marriage, it's "keeping gay people in their place and out of ours". Anytime you exclude a group with no good reason from participating in something that the majority populace is allowed to participate in, it's discrimination.

If the gay lobby was really so concerned about discrimination and oppression they would start doing the grass roots work in countries where gay people are actually oppressed and discriminated against rather than arguing about terminology used in the West when they already enjoy all the same rights as anyone else.

There are two problems with this: 1) People usually want to clean up the mess at home before they start working on other people's mess 2) Whatever makes you think the "gay lobby" is not working on other countries where gay people are being oppressed. Did you not see the uproar that happened when Russia put in their anti-gay legislation? And this happens in other countries too.

Tell that to any gay person in the western world who isn't allowed to get married. They are most definitely being discriminated and oppressed.

Pretty sensitive definition of oppression and discrimination. Not allowed to get married in (some) church/synagogue/mosque, but totally free to enter into a civil partnership and enjoy all the same rights and liberties in society that a church/synagogue/mosque wedding would entail. Oh horror.

If that were the case, then why are some people ok with gay civil unions, but not gay marriage?

Call it whatever you like. Just don't expect to go into a church/synagogue/mosque and have the clergy person bless you. Pretty simple really, and very telling that you are keen to ignore, trample the rights of religious institutions to follow their own morals and ethics in their own places of worship. Really invalidates your entire argument about persecution and oppression.

"keeping gay people in their place and out of ours"

lol. If by "our place" you mean the above-mentioned churches/synagogues/mosques, then yes, exactly. I can see why those groups would have a problem with sanctioning/blessing gay unions. And while I don't personally subscribe to their views, I do think their rights are just as important as the rights of gay people. Furthermore, I don't see why gay people would even want to be sanctioned by such groups since judging by the comments here they obviously hold any religious beliefs in disdain. I see a lot of "dog in the manger" here.

Anytime you exclude a group with no good reason

You say "no good reason" because you hold religion in contempt. From the point of view of the religious groups they have very good reasons for their stance - as printed in their holy books, and observed by them for thousands of years. Again, its very funny that you want to overturn their rights simply because you regard them as "no good". How would you feel if someone said gay people have "no good reason" to agitate for religious sanctioned marriages because they already have civil unions which are just as good? Oh wait ...

People usually want to clean up the mess at home before they start working on other people's mess.

The "mess" as you call it is already cleaned up. Unless, as I keep saying, your ultimate goal is to force the Pope to officiate at gay weddings. And we both know that's never going to happen. May as well move on to winnable battles, no?

Did you not see the uproar that happened when Russia put in their anti-gay legislation?

How could anyone have missed it. Still had no effect did it? I guess the gay lobby is limiting itself to lip-service when it comes to members of their community actually facing real "oppression and discrimination" around the world. Can't say I'm surprised.

I think legal marriage should be entirely decoupled from religion, rather as it is in Japan. Any couple wishing to be legally married must file the paperwork at a government office. If they also wish to have a religious ceremony that will be up to them, but the religious ceremony should have no legal standing at all.

In this way religious groups will be free to practice their bigotry and intolerance without government interference. If religious groups want to argue that their religious ceremony constitutes a legally valid marriage, then they must also be prepared to marry any couple that the law permits to be married, including same-sex couples.

Not allowed to get married in (some) church/synagogue/mosque, but totally free to enter into a civil partnership and enjoy all the same rights and liberties in society that a church/synagogue/mosque wedding would entail.

You are way off base. No one is petitioning for the legal right to marry in religious halls. They are insisting that a spade be called a spade, rather than have separate names just to appease and further bigotry.

And yes, gays are oppressed and oppressed and discriminated against far beyond how their marriages are termed. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to change the terms.

In fact, I look at your argument and it sounds to me like you are saying that there is a white toilet and a colored toilet. Why complain? Everyone has a toilet don't they? Seems willfully blind to me.

Pretty sensitive definition of oppression and discrimination. Not allowed to get married in (some) church/synagogue/mosque, but totally free to enter into a civil partnership and enjoy all the same rights and liberties in society that a church/synagogue/mosque wedding would entail.

Where did this strawman come from? The issues is about being able to get married under the legal definition of marriage, and has nothing to do with any church. Gay people just want the right to get legally married, same as heterosexual people want that right. I'm not sure why you suddenly brought churches into it. If you want to discuss gay people getting married in churches, you should probably wait until a more appropriate thread.

You say that marriage and civil partnerships are the same, and only semantically different. Well making black people sit at the back of the bus was only semantically different from being able to sit at the front of the bus. Making black people drink from different water fountains was only semantically different from allowing them to drink at all water fountains. Yet these are clearly understood examples of oppression, and are no different from making gay people have civil partnerships while allowing heterosexual people the right to get married.

As I said earlier

'You say "no good reason" because you hold religion in contempt. From the point of view of the religious groups they have very good reasons for their stance - as printed in their holy books, and observed by them for thousands of years.'

I think it would be more to the point to mention that religious groups hold gays in contempt and that is part of the reason many hold the religious in contempt. Their holy books also tell them to hold women in contempt, keep slaves and execute unruly children. There are many things they no longer hold to. The argument from scripture has been repeatedly exposed for what it is.

'You say "no good reason" because you hold religion in contempt.

I agree with Jimizo - I hold oppression in the name of religion in contempt. I don't hold all religion in contempt. But religion is not a good reason for oppression or discrimination.

@invisiblecolor:

The definition of "bisexual" is not a person who loves both a man and a woman at the same time. Its just that gender is not a barrier to their sexual interests. Bisexuals can and do fall in love with and marry one person at a time just like everybody else.

Since polygamy is illegal is most first world countries bisexuals have no other choice. With the new consensus on marriage equality if someone is born with an attraction to both men and women cannot rationally be forced to be monogamous. Certainly bisexuals are capable of loving two other people at the same time. If homosexuals are born with an attraction to the same sex and bisexuals are born with an attraction to both sexes by what logic should the bisexual person be prevented from be married to both a man and a woman?

And no, you don't need to be bisexual to desire a polygamous or polyandrous marriage.

Yes, but in the typical polygamous marriage where there is one husband and multiple wives, the wives are not married to one another. So in the case of bisexuals this point is moot. In a bisexual marriage of three or more people they would all be married to each other. Or there could be a situation where some are married to each other and others are only married to one in the group. Using the same arguments used to rationalize homosexual marriage, bisexual marriage and polygamy cannot be denied.

Marriage that includes homosexual marriage but not bisexual and polygamous marriage is still bigoted and unequal according to the logic of those that endorse it.

@Strangerland:

Making black people drink from different water fountains was only semantically different from allowing them to drink at all water fountains.

Your analogy is wrong. Those in a traditional marriage and those in a gay marriage have the same protection of the law. No difference. There are not gay courts and heterosexual courts to enforce the rights of marriage/civil unions.

The point of appropriating the religiously infused term "marriage" is to foist it upon those that oppose homosexual marriage. It's the acceptance argument and the normalization of what has been considered deviant. I understand why they want to use the term but it isn't because they are afraid that they will not have the same rights. If there were "separate but equal" court systems then you would have a point. But since there isn't - you do not.

I hold oppression in the name of religion in contempt.

You can also say that it is 'oppressive' and 'contemptuous' to foist one's culture and values on others who do not share them. That is why marriage needs to be removed from government oversight and definition.

Your analogy is wrong. Those in a traditional marriage and those in a gay marriage have the same protection of the law. No difference.

Yes there is. If the gay people are not allowed to get married then they don't have a marriage to be protected by the law. They may have a civil union - just like the black people back in the day had their own water fountains and their own section of the bus. You cannot claim there is no difference when gay people are not afforded the same status as straight people.

The point of appropriating the religiously infused term "marriage" is to foist it upon those that oppose homosexual marriage.

Marriage has not been a religious term for decades. Maybe it once was, but many, if not most people have marriages that contain zero religious affiliation. Once the government got in on marriage, marriage was decoupled from religion. The religiosity groups have no claim over the term. And therefore denial of marriage based on a previous religious affiliation is just another attempt at justifying discrimination.

What about Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Scotland already has civil partnerships and gay marriage will be introduced later this year. Northern Ireland has no plans to legislate for gay marriage.

Yes there is. If the gay people are not allowed to get married then they don't have a marriage to be protected by the law.

I was responding to your assertion that there are separate and unequal justice facilities like there were separate schools based on race. Marriage laws and civil law with regards to contracts between people are not the same - that is true. But that is still the case for more than just for homosexuals as I explained in my earlier post.

Once the government got in on marriage, marriage was decoupled from religion.

I am not religious myself but this assertion would come as a shock to most married people. Government use of the term does not replace the spiritual significance of term.

I am not religious myself but this assertion would come as a shock to most married people.

Only those who are religious. I'm not religious, and I'm married. My marriage exists because it is certified and recognized by the government of the country I live in, and the government of the country I am from. It has zero religions affiliation, and no religious organization anywhere had any input, claim, or relevance to the matter.

Government use of the term does not replace the spiritual significance of term.

It doesn't replace it, but it preempts it. The common thread between marriages is that they are backed by the government. This is how Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims can all be married within the same country - because the marriage is backed by the government. There may also be a religious significance behind the marriage, but that's separate from the law, has no commonality between other religions (beyond coincidental), and has no effect on the rights of married people whatsoever.