Legislation for gay marriage

Mike_c said:
That said, I'd support pet marriages and tree portraits too. If it could create extra business, why not?
Click to expand...

LoL - I once had a guy ask if i could shoot a 'baby book' of his new car (it wasnt even anything exciting, just a new ford mundaneo ) - there could be milleage in that tree portrait market yet :lol:
 
Slimbert said:
Anything goes round these parts.....just ask Mike Lynton!!
Click to expand...

have you met his mothersisterwife - I hear she's handy with a root vegetable :lol:
 
Cobra said:
**Mod hat**
Just be a little careful about the "religion and politics" guys :thumbs:


**Mod hat off**
But surly if the legislation is passed and the Church still refused to preform the
ceremony / wedding,
surly you guys and gals are no better off?
I can't see the church budging on this, even if the Goverment says Yay?
Just my thoughts as a straight guy that believes in "live and let live" :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The Unitarian Church has been campaigning for the right to conduct same sex marriages for years.
 
Johnd2000 said:
The Unitarian Church has been campaigning for the right to conduct same sex marriages for years.
Click to expand...

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths that non-cons will go to to recruit! :D
 
London Headshots said:
Why would it be anything else? You aren't allowed to see a business opportunity just because a few bigots are up in arms about it?
Click to expand...

Why are people bigots if they happen not to agree? There are people who think that if you are divorced you should not be married in a church which is a view they are perfectly entitled to hold. Each of us has different morals and surely each should respect that others are different and agree to disagree. I have no problem with people opposed to abortion as I am pro choice but respect their morals and viewpoint. Same with this. Can't really give a monkeys but can see points on both sides.
 
1.5% of the population are homosexual in the uk,

230,000 marriages on average per year

If every homosexual got married
Lets just say that 1.5% was added to that figure we're talking 3450 extra weddings
50,000 pro togs in the uk?

Not worth the time to worry about it really
 
How long will it be before a church is persecuted for not wishing to perform a same sex wedding in the same way as the Cornwall bed and breakfast couple?


Heather
 
That's not very enterprising though is it?

Look at it as a niche marketing target.

If 10% decide to get married as a result of the change in legislation, your marketing is successful to the point where you are THE person to go to for gay weddings and you get 10% of the market, that's 34ish weddings per year.

I'm no businessman but wouldn't a pro think that way?
 
We don't know the meaning of the word persecution in this country. I'd rather have Christian values in this country than a lot of other places in the world. Having said that I don't understand how my church could refuse a gay marriage but as a Christian businessmen I could be prosecuted for discrimination if I decide to shoot only straight weddings out of sincerity to my faith and not through any kind of animosity.
(Not saying that's what I would do as I would probably take the money!)
 
Stevenuth said:
1.5% of the population are homosexual in the uk,

230,000 marriages on average per year

If every homosexual got married
Lets just say that 1.5% was added to that figure we're talking 3450 extra weddings
50,000 pro togs in the uk?

Not worth the time to worry about it really
Click to expand...

So, let's say 20% of people are strongly opposed to gay weddings. That's 46,000 weddings where the couple are opposed. If I market myself as a "Straight only wedding tog, no gays allowed', thats a lot of opportunity to go at. Even if only 25% are hardcore anti gay that's still over 10,000 weddings to target. :lol:
 
Tigger.ufo said:
How long will it be before a church is persecuted for not wishing to perform a same sex wedding in the same way as the Cornwall bed and breakfast couple?

Heather
Click to expand...

They won't be. The CoE et al have an opt in clause, rather than an opt out. Basically they are legally covered.
 
cambsno said:
So, let's say 20% of people are strongly opposed to gay weddings. That's 46,000 weddings where the couple are opposed. If I market myself as a "Straight only wedding tog, no gays allowed', thats a lot of opportunity to go at. Even if only 25% are hardcore anti gay that's still over 10,000 weddings to target. :lol:
Click to expand...

Legally you won't be allowed to advertise like that. You could try of course, but it wouldn't be a very good idea!
 
cambsno said:
So, let's say 20% of people are strongly opposed to gay weddings. That's 46,000 weddings where the couple are opposed. If I market myself as a "Straight only wedding tog, no gays allowed', thats a lot of opportunity to go at. Even if only 25% are hardcore anti gay that's still over 10,000 weddings to target. :lol:
Click to expand...

Because the gay weddings will have nothing to do with those weddings (despite the protestations of many MPs today, several of whom are known to have had affairs on their spouse, that it will "devalue" heterosexual marriage...) I don't see it being a very successful niche ;)


There's already some snappers out there who specialise in civil partnerships. The pink pound, as marketers call it, isn't to be ignored. Rarer to have kids, more likely to have higher paying jobs and therefore good disposable income...

A great thing and sign of progress :) it certainly doesn't appear to be something that is considered to be a bad thing by young people.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't actually care less about the ramifications of the passing of this bill for 'wedding togs'. I am just so glad that the bill has passed. And to think people moan about this great country! Good on you Britain :)

(Although my local MP was a no-voter. Labour too. The swine!)
 
norters said:
Couldn't actually care less about the ramifications of the passing of this bill for 'wedding togs'. I am just so glad that the bill has passed. And to think people moan about this great country! Good on you Britain :)
Click to expand...

+1 Although the bill only applies to England and Wales - the Scottish bill is separate (but Scottish Government ministers have published draft legis*lation and there is cross party support).
 
cambsno said:
Why are people bigots if they happen not to agree? There are people who think that if you are divorced you should not be married in a church which is a view they are perfectly entitled to hold. Each of us has different morals and surely each should respect that others are different and agree to disagree. I have no problem with people opposed to abortion as I am pro choice but respect their morals and viewpoint. Same with this. Can't really give a monkeys but can see points on both sides.
Click to expand...

I've never met anyone, or heard of anyone who thinks you shouldn't be married in a church if you've been divorced. Ever. In 33 years, that's the first time I've ever come across that notion.

You've also just compared gay marriage to abortion, which is a complex, and genuine moral issue.

Gay marriage isn't a moral issue, that's a disgusting proposition. Gay marriage is about two humans wanting the same basic rights as other humans, but not being allowed to have them because a few bigots have it in their head that there's something wrong with how they feel.

I don't "respect" anyone's opposition to this issue. I suppose you'd "respect" someone if they said they were opposed to black people marrying? I mean, if they say it, and they think it, we have to "respect" them, right?

Don't be ridiculous.
 
London Headshots said:
I've never met anyone, or heard of anyone who thinks you shouldn't be married in a church if you've been divorced. Ever. In 33 years, that's the first time I've ever come across that notion.

You've also just compared gay marriage to abortion, which is a complex, and genuine moral issue.

Gay marriage isn't a moral issue, that's a disgusting proposition. Gay marriage is about two humans wanting the same basic rights as other humans, but not being allowed to have them because a few bigots have it in their head that there's something wrong with how they feel.

I don't "respect" anyone's opposition to this issue. I suppose you'd "respect" someone if they said they were opposed to black people marrying? I mean, if they say it, and they think it, we have to "respect" them, right?

Don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It was only fairly recently (last 20 years I think) that you could re-marry in a church. Hopefully someone can back me up as am sure that's the case. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong then of course it's a moral issue. My nan for example 20 years ago was not happy about me 'living in sin'. I am sure that if she was still alive she would be against this as she was of that generation and quite religious. I would never say she was a bigot though and although these discussions never came up, while she would have no problem with what people got up to at home, i don't think she would be supporting this.

Live and let live I say. There are protections for churches morally opposed so I would say everyone should be happy. I am not religious in the slightest, however I do believe in religious tolerance as well as the various equalities we have and sometimes they will contradict each other.
 
cambsno said:
It was only fairly recently (last 20 years I think) that you could re-marry in a church. Hopefully someone can back me up as am sure that's the case. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong then of course it's a moral issue. My nan for example 20 years ago was not happy about me 'living in sin'. I am sure that if she was still alive she would be against this as she was of that generation and quite religious. I would never say she was a bigot though and although these discussions never came up, while she would have no problem with what people got up to at home, i don't think she would be supporting this.

Live and let live I say. There are protections for churches morally opposed so I would say everyone should be happy. I am not religious in the slightest, however I do believe in religious tolerance as well as the various equalities we have and sometimes they will contradict each other.
Click to expand...

This is quite an interesting piece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/divorce_1.shtml

I am also not a religious person (I was brought up in a RC household), and I welcome the equal rights for same sex couples - however.
Why would a same sex couple want to insist on their rights to be married in a church, if it was specifically not allowed? How would anyone feel if they went through with the ceremony, knowing that the majority(?) of the congregation did not support what they were doing?
Is it any different to me going to play golf at a private club, and then decide to rebel against the dress code in place, knowing that this would probably result in me being asked to leave and never return?
I cannot understand why gay people do not start their own breakaway version of the Church of England/Roman Catholic Church, if they want to do things differently, after all there was a rather famous split in the church nearly five hundred years ago.
I regard religions in much the same way as I regard clubs. Have a look around, read up on them, study the rules, weigh up the pros and cons, and then join one (or maybe start one yourself) which suits you.
 
At some point someone decided that being homosexual wasn't something you chose rather something you were born with. There's equal evidence on both sides. For the last few hundred years at least the collective majority held the belief it was a behaviour rather than nature.

So don't be hard on those that struggle with the concept of Adam & Steve not Adam & Eve.

I can't understand vegetarians cos I love meat so much. Does that mean I'm a bigot towards the carrot munching population?
 
iamchrisphoto said:
But making money from "traditional" or non-same sex marriages if fine, right? Hypocrisy much?

The wedding industry in the UK is worth billions, regardless of your sexual orientation. There will just be more couples going forward who need photographers, DJ's and flowers etc.

It's good news for a lot of people. Most of all, same sex couples! :)
Click to expand...

it was more meaning that i myself 'do' photography because i love it not something i endure to make money... if what you photograph doesn't interest you then you won't make great work..
 
andy700 said:
This is quite an interesting piece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/divorce_1.shtml

I am also not a religious person (I was brought up in a RC household), and I welcome the equal rights for same sex couples - however.
Why would a same sex couple want to insist on their rights to be married in a church, if it was specifically not allowed? How would anyone feel if they went through with the ceremony, knowing that the majority(?) of the congregation did not support what they were doing?
Is it any different to me going to play golf at a private club, and then decide to rebel against the dress code in place, knowing that this would probably result in me being asked to leave and never return?
I cannot understand why gay people do not start their own breakaway version of the Church of England/Roman Catholic Church, if they want to do things differently, after all there was a rather famous split in the church nearly five hundred years ago.
I regard religions in much the same way as I regard clubs. Have a look around, read up on them, study the rules, weigh up the pros and cons, and then join one (or maybe start one yourself) which suits you.
Click to expand...

Good post but it still has nothing to do with the church as the law will mean that same sex couples can get married without the need for a religious ceremony.

Does the church try and ban registrar weddings?

So I don't understand why the church is so upset - are they thinking of lost revenue?

I go to church by the way.
 
Stevenuth said:
At some point someone decided that being homosexual wasn't something you chose rather something you were born with. There's equal evidence on both sides. For the last few hundred years at least the collective majority held the belief it was a behaviour rather than nature.

So don't be hard on those that struggle with the concept of Adam & Steve not Adam & Eve.

I can't understand vegetarians cos I love meat so much. Does that mean I'm a bigot towards the carrot munching population?
Click to expand...

I always thought that was one word .....:lol::lol::lol:
 
It appears that same sex marriage went on thousands of years ago, in ancient Greece and Rome, and also during the Ming dynasty in China.
In fact the reason why it died out in the Roman Empire was because of Christianity being introduced in around 340AD (and the subsequent introduction of the death penalty for anyone in a same sex relationship).
It is very difficult to discuss a subject such as this, without touching on politics or religion, but suffice to say both of those entities have hindered the progress which we see today.
We live in modern times, and I do wonder at the influence and power which religion holds, in what many people would like to think of as a democratic, secular country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
andy700 said:
It is very difficult to discuss a subject such as this, without touching on politics or religion, .
Click to expand...

This was discussed in the staff room recently,
and it was decided that some lee-way would be given, providing that
these sorts of threads don't kick off into an almighty row
regarding Catholics v Protestants (other religions are available ;))

Or Red v Blue v Orange, (again other parties are available ;))

 
Cobra said:
This was discussed in the staff room recently,
and it was decided that some lee-way would be given, providing that
these sorts of threads don't kick off into an almighty row
regarding Catholics v Protestants (other religions are available ;))

Or Red v Blue v Orange, (again other parties are available ;))
Click to expand...

Seems to be going ok so far, and pleased to see it!
 
hello

can someone enlighten me as the differences in the rights and benefits there are between a civil partnership and a marriage.

Specifically what is different other than the name?
 
joescrivens said:
hello

can someone enlighten me as the differences in the rights and benefits there are between a civil partnership and a marriage.

Specifically what is different other than the name?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know too Joe, because Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors, and there is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a partnership.
 
viv1969 said:
I'd like to know too Joe, because Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors, and there is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a partnership.
Click to expand...

I thought inheritance tax was slightly different for a civil couple.

edit. I see that was changed in 2004.
 
Last edited:
I have found a difference ....and this will shock the nation................





Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.
 
tiler65 said:
I have found a difference ....and this will shock the nation................





Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.
Click to expand...

Outrageous! :eek:
 
It's my understanding - but I'm no legal aficionado - that the legal implications of marriages and civil partnerships are for all intents and purposes the same. A quick google seems to have confirmed this. It's a common misconception that this isn't the case.

The perceived inequality comes from having two entirely different institutions for joining couples of heterosexual and homosexual persuasions. Doing so suggests that although there's a legal acceptance of such relationships, there's still debate whether a divisive systems inhibits a cultural acceptance of the validity of gay relationships.

The discussion is about putting all relationships on an equal footing, without the need to label said relationships as gay or straight and then divide them into two separate legal systems.

Now, whilst marriage isn't exclusively religious, it holds particular value to certain religions, and many of those religions believe that their Deity has stated explicitly that marriage is for the union and commitment of a man and woman. Consequently, same sex relationships can't be treated as marriage under religions that follow scriptures with those teachings.

Whilst I don't agree with forcing religions to perform same sex marriage, I absolutely believe that a marriage should be termed a marriage regardless of whether that relationship is between a man and a woman, two men, or 2 women.

This leads us to a particularly interesting time for religion, where their hand has been forced into either accepting or refusing the validity of same sex marriage. That's a debate that needs to be had, but one which is guaranteed to upset a large number of people whatever the outcome.

(Wow, that was hard not to include any personal opinion of the religious attitude!)
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
I am too lazy to read that. Can someone read it for me and post the bullet points please
Click to expand...

Apart from Tiler's point above re courtesy titles:

  • Gay marriage annoys The Church.
  • Civil partnership doesn't annoy The Church (as much).
And that's about it as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
The thing that worries me over this is other people's rights (not the gay couple getting wed themselves), particularly in 2 areas - firstly, the photographer's rights - putting it politely, I would not be at all comfortable shooting a gay wedding - I'm of the generation that is utterly revolted by blokes snogging (etc), so I could not in all conscience do a good job of photographing their big day - sod's law I'd get "the awkward couple" who'd phone to see if I was free, I'd innocently say I was - under the equality laws as are extant I could see them clobbering me with the full force of the laws if I were to be honest and say "it's outside my comfort zone" - as it stands I'd have to tell porkies, why should I have to? - What about my rights?

Then there's the (probably more contentious) matter of children's rights - if we are to have gay marriages, then there will be those who decide they have the "right" to have children - which means adoption or to my mind heinous practice of surrogacy, whereby the poor infant is wrenched from it's mother shortly after birth, to be brought up by a gay couple on formula milk, bereft of it's birth mother..... I'm at the very least "uneasy" about such practices, and am of the view that as far as possible kids need their natural mums and dads to bring them up..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top