Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:07 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I think you'd have to ask a person who wanted such a religious ceremony that question.

But to put it a different way, if someone wants a religious ceremony (and plenty do, even if they are not remotely religious), why should anyone be denied that?

If someone wants to be married, why not?

Even if that ceremony is totally opposed to their lives?
Kinda sounds like picking a fight for the sake of it to me which was the horse I came in on.

Mintball wrote:

TBH, I had been hoping that this thread would be more general and not just be about the cardinal's comments or that particular subject, but about the wider culture of a 'tyranny of intolerance', so to speak.

Glad to help

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:09 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

What I mean is that in a church wedding it is said that it is a union between a man and a woman.

Why are churches so inflexible that this can't be changed?

Yes I agree that they are blinkered into what parts they want to read and take notice of but in the case of a church wedding the man/woman part is pretty high up on the list so why would someone in a same sex relationship want to be involved in a church wedding when they are at odds of a key part of that ceremony and it is at odds to their life/relationship.

Again, why can't the man/woman bit being "high up" the list be changed?

If churches are going to get on their high horses about marriage (and therefore society) being devalued or harmed, they might be better off campaigning against divorce or maybe serial "marryers" like Katie Price etc.

BTW I won't feel at all threatened if a gay couple are allowed to marry.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:10 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's incredibly divisive to refer to one group as being 'in a civil partnership' and another group as being 'married'. That gay couples cannot declare themselves to be 'married' is really the only reason needed to change the law. Just as it would be wrong to refer to white people as 'human' and black people as 'evolved apes' (both are accurate), it is wrong that gay couples have to refer to their marriage as something that implies that it doesn't quite have the same status.

Change the word that describes a registry office legal partnership then to 'married'.
I just fail to understand why anyone would want to be involved with something that is opposed to them personally.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:11 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

I just fail to understand why anyone would want to be involved with something that is opposed to them personally.

I can certainly agree with that

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:13 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Why are churches so inflexible that this can't be changed?

Again, why can't the man/woman bit being "high up" the list be changed?

If churches are going to get on their high horses about marriage (and therefore society) being devalued or harmed, they might be better off campaigning against divorce or maybe serial "marryers" like Katie Price etc.

BTW I won't feel at all threatened if a gay couple are allowed to marry.

I feel you are missing my point.
I have no problems with it.
I just fail to see the logic in it.
Marriage is anti gay yet gays want to get married.
Putting it simply.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:16 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Change the word that describes a registry office legal partnership then to 'married'.

But that wouldn't be good enough for the Christian (and non-Christian) bigots. The proposed legislation wouldn't do much more than that anyway. All it would change is to allow gay weddings to include religious content and to take place in religious premises. No church or religious organisation would be compelled to carry out a gay wedding.

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

I just fail to understand why anyone would want to be involved with something that is opposed to them personally.

As I said, that's not the only - or even the main - issue.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:18 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Marriage is anti gay yet gays want to get married.
Putting it simply.

Simplistically, I would say. Marriage is not, in itself, anti-gay. The religious view of marriage may well be, but I like to think that we should base our laws on reason and evidence, not dogma and superstition. It is unreasonable that a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple, including the right to declare themselves 'married'.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:20 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

I just fail to see the logic in it.
Marriage is anti gay yet gays want to get married.
Putting it simply.

Interesting definition from Wikipedia of all places (so it must be right)

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

That seems to cover everything. That will be why gay people (not "gays" ) want to get married. Because it is a word for a social union that creates kinship and in which interpersonal relationships are acknowledged.

It seems that religious marriage is anti gay, but that brings us back to square one.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:23 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Simplistically, I would say. Marriage is not, in itself, anti-gay. The religious view of marriage may well be, but I like to think that we should base our laws on reason and evidence, not dogma and superstition. It is unreasonable that a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple, including the right to declare themselves 'married'.

I have covered the word 'married' higher up.
I am talking purely about the religious part of it which is anti-homosexual yet homosexuals want to use the religious side of it.
IMHO that makes little sense.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:24 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Interesting definition from Wikipedia of all places (so it must be right)

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

That seems to cover everything. That will be why gay people (not "gays" ) want to get married. Because it is a word for a social union that creates kinship and in which interpersonal relationships are acknowledged.

It seems that religious marriage is anti gay, but that brings us back to square one.

It is the religious part of it that I am talking about TBH.
As for the word 'gays' as soon as I clicked the submit button I knew it was wrong.