Wednesday, 19 October 2011

I Don't Believe in Gay Marriage!

When I grow up I want to be a gay politician, live in a gay house, cook gay dinner, watch gay tv, have a gay marriage, grow old with my gay husband and have gay kids.
When I grow up I want to be a politician, live in a house, cook dinner, watch tv, have a marriage, grow old with my husband and have a kid.
Just because I am gay does NOT mean that everything in my life is gay. So why should I have a 'gay marriage', why does it have to be labelled because of my sexuality, why can't I just get married?

In saying that though, I think the idea of marriage needs to be reviewed. Marriage used to be all about religion and being seen as a couple in the eyes of God, but not everyone believes in God so why should marriage still revolve around him? Sure you can get married in a Civil Ceremony but they still talk about being under the 'eyes of God'. I'm not a firm believer in God so why should I get married under his supervision and I am pretty sure atheists would feel the same.

Not only that, but many religions do not want to allow gays to get married, because of this religious belief of marriage, so why should we make them? Why should we stand and tell them that their religion is wrong? Everyone has an opinion, everyone has beliefs. Who are we to make them change them? Who made us God? Nobody. So instead of forcing them to change their views of marriage, why don't we change ours.

Marriage is a legally binding institution that defines how property, pensions, employment benefits, tax-credits, child support and inheritance and tenancy agreements are treated if one partner in the marriage dies, or the marriage comes to an end. -  UK Law

We need to strengthen the idea that marriage is not just a religious thing, but it is a contract between two people, sometimes for reasons other than religion; social, economic, spiritual and even just the emotional attachment that humans have to be with someone. We need to have two different forms of marriage. For the sake of argument I will call them 'Religious Marriage' and 'State Marriage'.

This solution is basically already in place in many countries, but it needs to be reinforced and strengthened and it needs to be seen as both marriages being different entities but still supporting the same basis. 

Religious Marriage:
You go to a church, or whichever place of worship you have, and have a traditional (or not) ceremony. You get married under the eyes of God and your protect the sanctity of marriage. You are not effecting anyone else, you are doing it by your own religion and that is that. You are now married under the eyes of God. But not the state. If you want to be married under the eyes of the state, to gain all the advantages of being married, you sign a document along with your Minister (or equivalent) and you are now married under the eyes of the state. Sounds pretty simple and is basically the same procedure which happens in today's society.

But the things is, not all people want this, Atheists for example, and then many religious groups do not want certain groups to get married in a church, Gays for example. So for this we have State Marriage.

State Marriage:
You got to a government approved building, or an alternative setting pre-arranged, such as libraries, beaches or even your own house, and have a wedding ceremony. You get married under the eyes of the state. The ceremony is not based on God or religion or anything and you sign a few papers along with the official who married you and you are now married under the eyes of the state, being able to enjoy the advantages it brings. This way you have not interfered with any religion and have not destroyed the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Is it just me or this not common sense. There should be a separation of church and state. Why should a state of elected officials be told by a religious body who does and doesn't have the right to get married? At the same time why should a religious body, which has been around for thousands of years, be told who they can and cannot stop getting married. It is unfair and unjust on both occasions. This way there is no confusion as to who (everyone) can get married.

Religious people can get married under the eyes of God and be happy knowing they are continuing in a thousand year old tradition while groups just as gays and atheists can get married under the eyes of the state knowing they are not infringing on the religion of others. This way different churches and different religions can choose whether or not they want gay marriage in their church. This is not stopping gays from getting married in a church, this is a solution to prevent from forcing view points on one another.

My name is Nathan Dickson and one day I want to grow up and get married. I don't want a 'gay marriage' I want a marriage. I want to be able to live my life free from religious constraints and free to marry who I please. Is that so hard to ask. Why does religion have to be brought in to it? All I want is to be able to enjoy the benefits being married has in a state and under the eyes of the law.


  1. But isn't that what a 'Civil Partnership' is? If you go to a church and the priest says 'You are now wed' you're not legally married, the marriage still has to be registered right? So people can choose to go to a registry office (heterosexual couples included) and get married, not under the eyes of god.


  2. As a leader in a church i enjoyed reading this and hearing your views.

    However i would also like to raise the point that as you named your two forms of marriage State Marriage and Religious Marriage have we not already got those two names.

    currently we have marriage and a civil partnership, which you must agree is a huge step forward in equal rights.

    In my opinion the state currently is taking huge strides towards equal rights for all but yet still maintaining tradition and religion.

    Surely all that's left now is names and titles of couples and at the end of the day does that really matter?

    At the end of the day in this situation all that really matters is that the state legally recognises you and your partner legally as one. After that names and titles are truly meaningless

  3. As I said, these are basically already in place but they are not concrete and they are very hazy and it is not clear. People do not want a civil partnership though, they want to be married.

    I think that names and titles of couples is important. Being 'married' and being in a 'civil partnership' yes may have the same legal term, but socially they are not equal. If it is all about equality why are the titles not equal?

    I disagree names and titles are not meaningless. Here it is not legal equality this is about social equality.

  4. I agree with you. I'm gay and want to get married and have children but I don't want a civil partnership. I want to be married! Everything in my life isn't gay as well. I may be gay but it doesn't mean what I do is gay. That's just my prefrence. The church may not like gay people getting married, but being gay is not a choice of life style is in youe DNA. That's how we get gay animals as well. So if God did not what 'gay' to happen than he would have created us in a way where everyone would be intrested in the opposite sex. So I think marrage should be open for anyone :) even dogs can get married! So why can't gay men and lesbians get married! Do dogs have more rights that gay people? Xx

  5. civil partnership by definition and explanation was set up precisely as a way to appease gay couples but to restrict them then from getting married. Having worked very hard alongside the Equality Network recently and having heard both sides of the argument i realise that both sides are guilty of not understanding each other.

    Civil partnership is seen as a form of marriage without the eyes of god. But to gay people it is seen as a lesser form of marriage which through legislation it is. The eyes of god watch over us in our judiciary system you swear an oath with one hand on the bible. The opening of parliament in Scotland and england references god throughout.

    The argument really should be that if religious leaders in churches throughout a country want to perform marriages to gay couples then why should they not be allowed. It is of course fair to say that under the churches own rules it should not be allowed and if you want to be a minister then you must follow the rules. However there can be no conflicting laws within a country as it leaves people confused bitter and de-moralised.
    The conflicting law here i that there can be no discrimination other than in the church. That is where the whole argument stems from or should stem from and in politics, religion should not rule over.

    The scenes in Scotland we have seen recently from the bishop of paisley have been one of threats to the government consulting over this issue. "If you support gay marriage then the SNP (the government) will lose hundreds of thousands of voters." The message read loud and clear and i believe was intentionally meant as a threat. However 70% of people in a country that is rapidly becoming atheist believe in the rights of gay people to get married without forcing Bishops and minsters to conduct the ceremonies. This allows for democracy and equality wrapped up in a nice wee package.

    Having said that my dad does't agree with gay marriage on the grounds that it is important that children grow up knowing that marriage is between a man and a women but then again he believes i became gay because my mum used to let me push the pram.

    Thank god he isn't participating in this process.

    We want a fair and equal law we want to reduce discrimination and hate crimes of all nature. In a country that is governed by equals and represented by all for this to happen then gay marriage amongst others have to happen otherwise governments and laws and attitudes in society will seem hypocritical....after all the pope admitted the catholic church was wrong over the condoms issue and now supports them..who knows when the papacy will admit another blunder.