Angela Merkel and gay marriage

[ColchesterFC]

Gay marriage was legalised in Germany today after a vote in the German parliament by 393 votes to 226. Angela Merkel voted against legalisation on the grounds that she believes that in her opinion the union is "the preserve of a man and a woman". Shortly after the vote she said "To me, marriage as defined in the German basic law means the marriage between husband and wife".

I kind of agree with her in her beliefs. Does that make the two of us and anyone else that agrees horribly outdated? Marriage between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman so why does it need to have the same name? Is there really any problem with it being called a civil partnership rather than a marriage as long as equal rights are applied to all relationships?

 

[Lump]

Genuine question for anyone against gay marriage.

Do you closely know any gay couples? By closely I mean personally, not just friends of friends.

 

[User20205]

Gay marriage was legalised in Germany today after a vote in the German parliament by 393 votes to 226. Angela Merkel voted against legalisation on the grounds that she believes that in her opinion the union is "the preserve of a man and a woman". Shortly after the vote she said "To me, marriage as defined in the German basic law means the marriage between husband and wife".

I kind of agree with her in her beliefs. Does that make the two of us and anyone else that agrees horribly outdated? Marriage between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman so why does it need to have the same name? Is there really any problem with it being called a civil partnership rather than a marriage as long as equal rights are applied to all relationships?

Why isn't it the same?

Merkel's party is the Christian democrats? No ? Maybe she feels that she needs to reflect the attitudes of her core supporter.
For me full equality isn't full unless it's normalised. This includes the name of the union.
I'm prepared to listen to a contrary view point, but I can't think of a rational reason to object to gay marriage

 

[guest100718]

this'll end well

 

[ColchesterFC]

Genuine question for anyone against gay marriage.

Do you closely know any gay couples? By closely I mean personally, not just friends of friends.

My female cousin is in a same sex relationship. Why?

 

[ColchesterFC]

Why isn't it the same?

In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?

 

[ColchesterFC]

this'll end well

There's no reason for it not to end well. Surely we can have a grown up discussion about this without it having to turn bad.

 

[User20205]

In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?

Because civil partnership isn't marriage & therefore not full equality. The definition that you use is very narrow. Where is this defined? Change is good

 

[Lump]

My female cousin is in a same sex relationship. Why?

Would you deny her the right to call her partner her wife and everything that goes with that.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Don't see the issue
2 people who love each other, live together and share everything.
The public announcement of their bonding is a marriage regardless of their sexes.

Calling it something else is just splitting hairs, just because it's always been so, doesn't mean it has to stay that way

Glad the churches are gradually catching up

 

[ColchesterFC]

Would you deny her the right to call her partner her wife and everything that goes with that.

No not at all. As long as there is equality (which it seems from therod's post that there isn't, which I didn't know) between marriage and whatever same sex "marriage" is to be called. I'm not arguing against same sex marriage but against the terminology.

 

[User20205]

No not at all. As long as there is equality (which it seems from therod's post that there isn't, which I didn't know) between marriage and whatever same sex "marriage" is to be called. I'm not arguing against same sex marriage but against the terminology.

I'm no expert. I believe that there are subtle differences, but even without those a civil partnership would feel like a pale imitation, even if only a perception.

 

[GreiginFife]

Who or what (aside from basic German law) defines marriage as between man and woman?

Is this a universal definition? Is it an agreed definition? Agreed by whom, if so?

 

[Hobbit]

In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?

Why can't it be marriage? After all it is another term for a civil partnership...

I don't see gay and not gay, I just see people.

 

[chrisd]

Marriage can be the union of anyone to anyone as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe that it is a religious matter and no one should be denied because of a load of tosh spouted particularly by so called Christian writings.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Who or what (aside from basic German law) defines marriage as between man and woman?

Is this a universal definition? Is it an agreed definition? Agreed by whom, if so?

I think certainly historically and religiously marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. In the bible it's described as "a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman".

 

[Pin-seeker]

I'm not religious so marriage doesn't interest me.
If 2 people of the same sex choose to get wed,crack on.

 

[GreiginFife]

I think certainly historically and religiously marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. In the bible it's described as "a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman".

Well history is really just culture and that changes all the time, earth flat, man willl never fly and all that.

Religion on the other hand, well thats different. My wedding didnt have an ounce of religion in it, not a smidgeon. Does that mean I can tell the wif... I mean the Mrs... hang on, her indoors to sling the hook?
If I'm not religeous, does it not apply to me then?

Or, is it another element, like women in the cloth, that needs to change because culture and history is being made?

 

[guest100718]

There's no reason for it not to end well. Surely we can have a grown up discussion about this without it having to turn bad.

you'd like to think so

 

[ScienceBoy]

Every couple should be allowed the same legal and financial security of a recognised union, whatever you call it it should be open to everyone and no special pairing should get a better deal.

IMO it's marriage that is outdated and we should be moving to something more modern.

No idea what that would be but marriage is far to messy to sort out when it goes wrong or even when it comes to a natural end. I bet those who make money off divorce would not like my suggestion!