Same sex marriage bill

merlot I totally agree with you grandaughters very sensible point. It is one I would have made as well.

AT this moment of writing the 'Same sex marriage Bill' and 'Embarrassing bodies - Irritating habits' are next to each other on GN.

Sums it up for me actually. I am for civil partnership and this thing by David Cameron does not ring true. Marriage is to create a safe environment for children.

Gay couples have children.

Just living together can create a safe environment for children. Marriage is irrelevant to that. Plenty of couple who successfully raise children are not married and have not entered into a civil partnership either. Marriage is not necessary to bring up children.

Successful single parents, anyone?

Margaret - I do hope that your juxtaposition of gay marriage and embarrassing bodies does not mean what it suggests!
May I ask if you have done any research on the history of marriage in Britain?
I think you will find it had much more to do with male ownership of property , which included wives and children, and their wives' property, than it had to do with the safety of children.
Marriage, or bonding, customs vary widely over time and place. What is seen as normal in one culture would be seen as bizarre in another. There is nothing 'natural' about the legal contract of marriage. Many animals pair bond for life (although the female often makes sure she has a 'spare' sperm donor to help bring up the young). There are some 86 species of animals that have been shown to enjoy homosexual relationships, sometimes as a way of preventing aggression, sometimes as a form of birth control.
Who has the right to lay down for everybody else what is 'normal'?

There were many thousands of widows after both World Wars - many brought up their children alone as there were few spare single men around. I don't recall that they were ever labelled as 'single mothers' and demonised.

It's interesting that historically marriage was to 'protect' the man, in the sense of trying to make sure that the children who inherited his wealth were his own. Nowadays, there are other ways of ascertaining who is a child's father (or, at least, who isn't) so the property protection clause part of marriage is no longer necessary.

The thought that "marriage" should be exclusive to a couple of young male and female virgins in order to procreate is nothing short of ridiculous.

I have been married three times (yes I know?????)

The first time I was pregnant (and 18). The "marriage" lasted 3 months before I was literally left holding the baby.

The second lasted a little bit longer and resulted in the birth of my DD. Sadly my husband died very suddenly.

When I entered into my third marriage to the "love of my life" we both agreed that neither of us felt the need to have children between us although we were both still quite young.

The point I am trying to make is who decided which marriage is more valid than the next? Surely two people who love each other and wish to make the commitment of marriage is the only rule there should be. Whether they be 18 or 80 , gay or straight, religious or non religious.

Yes.

I'd go even further and say it's up to them how much commitment they make to each other, and nobody else's business. Which is not to say there isn't a use for a law that protects people's (individuals' or couples') property rights.

Did Boris Johnson really say that he equates same sex marriage with bestiality and incest? (I know he's not an MP so wouldn't have been part of yesterday's debate.)

Bags Perhaps something on the lines of I will remain committed to you until such times as I decide otherwise or something better comes along

Or 'until you betray or beat me or our children or become a criminal'?

Indeed. Greatnan

I wonder if Cameron is doing this for cynical reasons or whether he really does want to build a better world in his lifetime.

Well on the whole he's going about on a funny way if he does!

A better world for whom though?

I would have given him the benfit of the doubt, had it not been for the sleazy business of Rebekah Wade and the rest of the gutter press.

Well absent, I suppose I meant, in this instance, for gay people.

I think when conditions improve for minorities it raises the 'civilisation' count for the whole nation.

As long as they are not unemployed and/or disabled Jo135 08

If someone is doing a good thing, why question their motives? Besides, it won't be Cameron who is really doing it; he just gets the credit.

Increasing equality is an unqualified good thing in my book.

The fact that equality of health or education provision also needs to be looked at does not negate the need to do this as well. Maybe this one's just easier to tackle than those two.

I would like to know whether he is just trying for the younger vote, or whether he really is a decent and tolerant person. I think it matters. We're going to have to vote again fairly soon.