to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

I haven't posted on this before because I'm very confused in my own mind as to what I think!
Deep down I have nothing against civil partnerships.
But!
I have to admit I am not happy with the idea of the sacrament of marriage being administered in this way.
My understanding is that lack of fertility has been a grounds for divorce or 'setting aside' in most cultures.
If this is the case, then, surely, then the marriage of two people of the same sex is not productive!
On the other hand, I know that, if I, as a widow met another man, I would want to be married.
If I met a woman and if we felt attracted, I would not feel I wanted marriage!
I know I've never so far felt an attraction to another woman, but, I don't rule it out!
This post is very rambling and long! APOLOGIES but I am confused myself and trying to sort out my own reasoning

Feel free to pull me to pieces!

Greatnan,yes perhaps it was seen as a stopgap for gay couples but there are couples who do not wish to enter into a marriage with its historical and religious implications on principle,but would like the legal safeguard of a civil partnership. If we are looking at equality then civil partnerships should be available to all.Perhaps they will be abolished if the gay marriage bill is finally made law?

Greatnan
Can you please define who you mean by "the young 'uns?" Polite?

I feel proud too Greatnan . Proud that we can have a very sensible and civilised debate on such a " hot topic" on which we have such differing views.

Aga - the civil partnership was, I am sure, seen as a staging post for gay marriage . Hetrosexual couples did not need it, as they could already go straight to marriage. However, I am all in favour of couples who live together, but are not in a sexual relationship, such as friends or siblings, being able to have some form of legal contract which would entitle them to the same rights.

I am proud of the members of Gransnet - I hope the young 'uns realise how we view bigotry.

I wonder why people are so sympathetic to gay couples who see a difference between civil partnership and marriage,which they will be able to choose between, when heterosexuals are only entitled to have a marriage, not a civil partnership.

Coming back to the question of why vicars can decline to marry gay couples, but when B&B owners are deemed to have discriminated if they refuse to allow them a bed for the night, I think it is a matter of conscientious objection.
It's similar to doctors and nurses being allowed to opt out of being involved in abortions, it's a matter of conscience.
In all other matters hospital staff are not allowed to discriminate on any of the usual grounds.

That was to Marthanne and the first bit was quoting her post

Maybe my post does sound a bit bigoted

You said it!

Never thought of that, marthanne!

I've enjoyed this debate and can see your points of view- on a humourous note it will be more money for the lawyers when the Gays want to divorce

marthanne
I am sorry but I think "Changing the structure of society" seems a bit over stated for what has been proposed.

A small minority in this country who are already in a relationship will change what they call that relationship. Nothing more at at all.

Current figures suggest that the Gay and Lesbian population in Britain is about 1.5%.

Two hundred years ago the structure of society meant that the poor were allowed to starve. Three hundred years ago slave-owning was seen as a normal structure of society. Most changes have been for the better.
Why deny two people the chance to make a public and legal commitment to each other? What are people afraid of?

Maybe my post does sound a bit bigoted and lacking in love. But I see it as being a bit problematic to allow the structure of society to change.

Granny 23

Gordon Brown was there recently. He voted to keep 650 M.P' not 600.

No. That's alright.

Ooops sorry j08 I wasn't trying to read your mind.

Just wondering what you meant that's all.

Granny23 Not to mention several thousand pounds a year "to help him readjust from being PM". Margaret Thatcher and John Major are also still getting their readjustment compensation. I suspect TB is too as he never seems keen to turn down any source of income, but I am not certain.

Thank you all for your answers. I'm not sure I am any the wiser, it still seems as if there are different rules for different people. It is nice though to have a discussion without anyone getting hot under the collar. I love a good discussion and am always suprised that some people can't cope with others having differing views and take it as a personal insult. I often find I learn alot by listening to these alternatives .

I am glad to see that none of my (SNP) MPs voted - true to their promise not to vote on matters related to England and Wales only.

As to Gordon Brown Abstaining - I'd bet a £ to a penny that he was not there. The man has hardly been seen in Westminster since he lost his PM job - still drawing his MP's salary though....

No. I don't think that at all! I just think that it was a difficult decision for a lot of people to arrive at.

Oh I am intrigued j08 what do you mean? What people at the top?

I think perhaps the whole B & B things was a set up anyway, is that what you meant?

How can you tell for certain whether someone holds a genuine religious belief, or is just being a narrow minded homophobe? Someone had to decide.

I think a lot of people, probably many at the very top, were unsure about the bed and breakfast couple.