Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:44 am  

There's absolutely no reason why a gay couple cannot have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I do question the use of the term 'marriage' as possibly coming under a general religious banner - the sham is those hetero couples who marry in a church despite no beliefs. Whilst religion itself is b*llocks, whilst it exists I don't have a problem narrowing the definition of marriage itself to some religious ceremonies.

The other caveat is that despite what people in (some) western countries might want in terms of equality for gay couples, their marriages will not be recognised by the majority of people in the world for a long, long time.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:26 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

There's absolutely no reason why a gay couple cannot have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I do question the use of the term 'marriage' as possibly coming under a general religious banner - the sham is those hetero couples who marry in a church despite no beliefs. Whilst religion itself is b*llocks, whilst it exists I don't have a problem narrowing the definition of marriage itself to some religious ceremonies.

The other caveat is that despite what people in (some) western countries might want in terms of equality for gay couples, their marriages will not be recognised by the majority of people in the world for a long, long time.

So basically you're in favour of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, providing it is officially-sanctioned discrimination?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:34 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

There's absolutely no reason why a gay couple cannot have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I do question the use of the term 'marriage' as possibly coming under a general religious banner - the sham is those hetero couples who marry in a church despite no beliefs. Whilst religion itself is b*llocks, whilst it exists I don't have a problem narrowing the definition of marriage itself to some religious ceremonies.

The other caveat is that despite what people in (some) western countries might want in terms of equality for gay couples, their marriages will not be recognised by the majority of people in the world for a long, long time.

The term marriage is not exclusively religious, and I doubt it ever has been. There are literally millions of heterosexual couples in this country alone who have had civil ceremonies, but are still able to declare themselves married.

You accept that religion is nonsense, yet you would be happy to deny equal rights to homosexual people based on religiously-sanctioned bigotry. That's just weird.

Finally, just because (some of) the rest of the world is lagging behind in the area of gay rights is not a reason for us to halt our progress in that area. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:18 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Of course not, but marriage is for people of the opposite sex and always has been. If homosexuals want to be legally bound together then whats wrong with having a civil partnership? A religious ceremony would be a sham at a homosexual wedding.

Your knowledge on the subject is unsurprisingly disgraceful, bow your head in shame you bigot.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Surely, they should simply just pilot one gay marriage, and if God is displeased, wouldn't he smote the participants, or send a plague of locusts, or whatever it is he does when he is not best pleased?

Of course the various churches will express displeasure, which they will claim is God speaking through them of his displeasure

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:26 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Surely, they should simply just pilot one gay marriage, and if God is displeased, wouldn't he smote the participants, or send a plague of locusts, or whatever it is he does when he is not best pleased?

Of course the various churches will express displeasure, which they will claim is God speaking through them of his displeasure

It's a dangerous tactic anyway. Remember that nutter who said Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing the people of New Orleans? We'd only need some coincidental extreme weather in the months following the test wedding and they'd all be creaming their kecks in righteous excitement.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:29 am  

Rock God X wrote:

It's a dangerous tactic anyway. Remember that nutter who said Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing the people of New Orleans? We'd only need some coincidental extreme weather in the months following the test wedding and they'd all be creaming their kecks in righteous excitement.

Wasn't that the president?

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:56 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

It's a dangerous tactic anyway. Remember that nutter who said Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing the people of New Orleans? We'd only need some coincidental extreme weather in the months following the test wedding and they'd all be creaming their kecks in righteous excitement.

Wasn't that the president?

I seem to remember it being some fundamentalist minister, but I wouldn't totally surprised if I was mistaken.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:04 am  

If memory serves me right he just sat on his booty till Brad Pitt got involved.

Re: Is John Sentamu totally bonkers? : Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:05 am  

Sheldon wrote:

If memory serves me right he just sat on his booty till Brad Pitt got involved.

He did that, yes, but I'm not sure he openly stated that the devastation was God's will.