http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099
So here you are, isnt it about time you stepped into the real world, where there are people who dont want your beliefs and words shoved down their throats, where there are poor people living on the streets , and who have no jobs, yet you only work on Sundays, and have a big house, free of charge, perhaps rent a few rooms out, or convert it to a hostel,just perhaps you can say something to help them.
You just want attention and are trying to recruit new members to your way of life , which isnt the way of life for many millions of us normal types, who are accepting of peoples ability and right to live together in a relationship,unlike yourself and others you suround yourself with.
grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".
I dont think this means what he thinks especially the UNIVERSAL bit
father.
"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."
He seem to think that marriages makes children ...I knew they were not keen on sex education in catholic schools but can someone explain theprocess to him
Imagine for a moment that the government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that 'no one will be forced to keep a slave'.
He seems to be forgetting that god allows slaves here ...are you sure he is a cardinal?
There are laws that imprison, and laws that create freedom, I think he has made it clear which he prefers.
From flaperons linky,
Church officials have backed O’Brien’s statement, claiming that having a pointy hat and a big gold chair means that their two-thousand year-old opinions on the modern world are incredibly important.A Catholic spokesperson said, “If we let people live the sorts of lives they want to, which make them happy and don’t affect anyone else, then what role does the church have left in society?”
“Before you know it, the collection plates we send round to parishioners at mass will be empty and we might start having to sell off our billions in assets.”
“This is the slippery slope towards the church becoming obsolete – so of course we’re against it.”
But is it still relevant,its not as if it would be missed like sunday shopping would be.
I thought this might be about WCA and the [url= http://www.bigbikebash.co.uk/ ]BIG BIKE BASH[/url]
😀
Somebodies hacked his site, the admission price has gained an extra zero.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want something similar that's fine but don't call it marriage. Find another name.
Edukator, why?
Marriage is just a word, no? The marriage of the chain to the wheel, the marriage of cobra beer to a curry, the marriage of bicycle to mountain....
Surely 'marriage' is the positive bringing together of two things, be they people, items, places, ideologies or anything else?
Oddly enough there was a priest talking about this on the news as I was reading this thread. He said that marriage has changed often over the generations, and in his opinion it's not about gender, and everything about love.
The slavery analogy is breathtakingly stupid.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want something similar that's fine but don't call it marriage. Find another name.
If gay people want to get married, and call it a marriage, why is it anyone else's business?
If gays want something similar that's fine but don't call it marriage. Find another name.
Perhaps "educators" then
Grum I think it is hatred and not allowing them the same rights as non gays or it is a well thought out and logical position based on invisible unproven sky fairies views of them....either way it is impossible to defeat the power of their logic or the force of their reason.
"attention seeker needs more publicity...."
shame you picked on the church to get it though project 😉
On a forum where people seem pay a lot of attention to the correct use of words I refer you to your dictionary, Pook. Mine says:
Mariage: Union légale d'un homme et d'une femme.
The legal union of a man and woman. If you check the origin of the word "mariage" in French a thousand years back it refers to an agreement between two men, the father of the bride and the groom in which responsibilty for the bride is passed from father to groom. The word is therefore inapproppriate in a union in which the partners are female as there is no agreement between two men. In the interests of sexual equality we need a new word to cover unions between two women or two men. Unfortuantaely there is no "r" in "pacs" so you can't just borrow the French word and add an "r".
"Edukators" are anti-capitalist activists, Project.
Edukator, there are so many things wrong with your post, I'm not sure where to start.
The meaning of many words has changed with time.
so if my wife didn't have a dad, does that mean our marriage should be annulled?an agreement between two men, the father of the bride and the groom
Well, maybe the UK Goverment should exclude another randomly chosen group, say the Catholics, from obtaining a 'proper' marriage for a year. See how they like it?
I dont need an old guy in a fancy silk dress and funnyhat to tell me who I should and should not marry.
Rachel
Which came first Edukator - the dictionary or the egg?
🙄
"Edukators" are anti-capitalist activists
so is that the same ones who use the capitalist funded internet to propogate their views, wghile sitting at home in their capitalist bought house as opposed to a rented one, using capitalist supplied electric and gas, and eating food from the numerous capitalist supermarkets, all the above are there to sell a product or service, and make a profit.
Anti cpaitalism doesnt work, it just provides work for the printers, and t shirt makers.
The very same ones, Project, though this Edukator doesn't use capititalist supplied gas and is a capitalist electricity supplier, and isn't even anti-capitalist. But is against the misuse of the word "marriage".
What do you want, Rachel? A contract and ceremony to go with it that gives homosexuals the same rights (including adoption) as marriage gives heterosexuals. If so I suggest you dream up a name for it then start campaigning and I will support you.
No - I just want to be able to get married to the person I'm in love with, that's all - [b]just like anyone else[/b]...
EDIT - wait - that reads like I'm actually in love with someone - I'm not.
Rachel
Why is the dictionary definition of marriage between a man and a woman? Because [i]currently, [/i]that's what it means. Once the change is made, the dictionary definition will change also.
Dictionaries don't define what words mean; they record what words mean.
Of course, this is a side argument; the real question is why in the name of thundering **** would anyone think that dictionary definitions are a good reason to impede progress.
As a catholic priest he finds the idea of same-sex relations not involving a priest and an alter boy abhorrent.
[i]Dictionaries don't define what words mean; they record what words mean. [/i]
Exactly, marriage means a union between a man and a woman.
Leaving the dictionary definition aside what do people understand by "marriage"? For some, extending the scope of the meaning devalues the word and even the institution. Language is very refined and allows lots of subtle differences in meaning. Use the same word for everything and language loses its precision. Homosexual language is full of specific vocabulary, a new word is needed (unless homosexuals already have one I'm unaware of).
Edukator - MemberMarriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want something similar that's fine but don't call it marriage. Find another name.
No.
Precisely because it annoys people like you.
Oh, and I don't think gay people want something similar to marriage, they want something exactly the same as marriage.
In fact, let's call it 'marriage'.
And it's not just gay people who are in favour.
Language evolves - get used to it.
I'm not even a little bit annoyed. The annoyed people seem to be those complaining about the cardinals words. What do you expect him to say, have you read the Bible?
Edukator - MemberExactly, marriage means a union between a man and a woman.
Hey, cool, an echo- "currently, that's what it means. Once the change is made, the dictionary definition will change also."
Just for a giggle, here's the Collins dictionary definition of bicycle:
bicycle [?ba?s?k?l]
n
a vehicle with a tubular metal frame mounted on two spoked wheels, one behind the other. The rider sits on a saddle, propels the vehicle by means of pedals that drive the rear wheel through a chain, and steers with handlebars on the front wheel Often shortened to cycle (informal) bike
Carbon fibre? Not a bicycle. Belt drive? Not a bicycle. Sorry, you'll have to invent a new word for those things.
What do you expect him to say, have you read the Bible?
Yes.
It's rubbish.
I don't want to spoil it but they nail him to a tree in the end.
Oh come on, there's loads nonsense in the Bible that people are supposed to do, but everyone ignores.
Selectively quoting the bits about homosexuality is just an excuse
for homophobes to parade another aspect of their inadequacy.
As you well know.
actually that's a very poor reason IMO rusty.
For me it's simple. I married my wife and for me it's as simple as it being a legal partnership between two people who want to spend their lives together. Gay people can't currently do the same. That's not fair or equal and therefore for me, wrong.
. Use the same word for everything and language loses its precision
Really? Like using the word gay for different meanings, should we invent another word now for that now too?
Your post is one of the most laughable posts I've seen on here.
First of I'm just a girl, don't really do the label thing.
Saying I can't get married because of a french dictionary says so is pathetic
John and Mark are married.
Jack and Chloe are married.
Emma and Sarah are married.
I fail to see any lack of precision.
I imagine that the church isn't keen on men/women civil ceremonies being called marriages either.
clubber - Memberactually that's a very poor reason IMO rusty.
For me it's simple. I married my wife and for me it's as simple as it being a legal partnership between two people who want to spend their lives together. Gay people can't currently do the same. That's not fair or equal and therefore for me, wrong.
I agree clubber.
Just enjoy the fact that it will annoy Edukator and treat it as a bonus. 🙂
I don't think that it [i]really[/i] annoys Edukator....I just think it's how he/she gets their kicks on a Sunday night.
Now were I to start insulting Islam people would be prepared to murder me for it. In fact not believing is good enough reason to murder me if your read the Koran. We might live in the 21C but some people and institutions reamin very attached to biblical values including a constitutional monarchy on an island in NW Europe called the United Kingdom. The Queen is head of church and state. The Bible is still the basis for the rules of the society you live in, Rusty. It might be an [b]excuse[/b] for homophobes but it is a [b]reason[/b] for believers (I'm agnositc BTW).
I have respect for both believers and homosexuals, the only way I can reconcile that is to ask homosexuals to invent a name for their union that does not offend believers.
[i]I have respect for both believers and homosexuals, the only way I can reconcile that is to ask homosexuals to invent a name for their union that does not offend believers.[/i]
What concern is it of yours?
Are you going to extend your interest in nomenclature to other areas of life?
I have respect for both believers and homosexuals, the only way I can reconcile that is to ask homosexuals to invent a name for their union that does not offend believers.
Cripes.
The Bible is still the basis for the rules of the society you live in, Rusty. It might be an excuse for homophobes but it is a reason for believers (I'm agnositc BTW).
Rubbish.
Show me a Christian who believes and obeys all the rules and pronouncements laid down in the Bible.
Go on, just one.
People pick and choose sections of any religious text to support their own prejudice and to fit in with their chosen peer group.
Anyway, I dislike your use of the word 'believer'.
Can't religious types pick another word which doesn't denegrate the memory of Davy?
I will restate that I am in favour of a legal partnership that gives Homosexuals the same rights as marriage gives heterosexuals.
That's why everyone is here is it not, sc-xc? Inspector Barnaby (Midsommer Murders) has now finished and my family has come back to life so I'll log off now and rejoin the real world.
Some of you have proved yourselves more intolerant and less open to the views of others than the Cardinal himself though, I thought you would.
[img] 
[/img]
How somebody in the 21st century can decry marriage between two people of the same sex simply because they 'believe' not in God, but in the interpretations of a varied collection of writers and scribes still never fails to amaze me.
That those same people people who would other wise come across as intelligent and of reasoned thinking continue to propogate such nonsense is just depressing.
As one of the few out gay people who pop into this forum there is only one thing to say to poor old Edukator:
Your argument has already been lost.
At work and on the street people ask me if I am married and I say "Yes". People at work refer to MrAdamW as my husband and talk amongst themselves that we are married. Those words exactly. The word's already in use. Being a bigot and screaming "Noooo!" from the boundaries is not going to change things. The only way back would be to ban civil partnerships. Perhaps if the official title (Civil Partner) wasn't such a mouthful then it wouldn't have happened.
But to be honest, I don't really care that some old man who wears a dress says. He's not even that good a drag queen, and that hat is just ridiculous.
He's not even that good a drag queen, and that hat is just ridiculous.
🙂
Some of you have proved yourselves more intolerant and less open to the views of others than the Cardinal himself though, I thought you would.
People can believe whatever they like, makes no difference to me.
However, justifying homophobia because 'God told me to' is moral cowardice of the highest order.
Whatever religion you belong to.
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27
"When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening." -- Leviticus 15:19-20
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." -- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
For some reason people don't really bother with any of these any more, probably because they are irrelevant to the modern world.
As an aside: how on earth does one round the corners of their head? Was the author on acid when he wrote it?
Wouldn't doing such a thing cause major trauma or death?
?? Confused!
I can see where you've gone wrong there Adam.
I think it's meant to put a stop to things like this:
[img] 
?2[/img]
Which is definitely an abomination against something.
I could be wrong but I think the literal translation is "thou shalt not have a bowl cut".
<edit- DAMN IT ALL!>
I though that was something to do with using cheap Allen keys."Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27
I though that was something to do with using cheap Allen keys.
I so want to get a multitool manufactured with that etched on the side now...
Rachel
Is this about gay people wanting to form a union in church or just wanting to call their union a marriage?
If its church then, my opinion is that clubs have rules and you can't just expect them to change them to suit other people. Why you would want a union in a place that discriminates against you i don't know.
I appreciate gay christians might desire a church union.
There's all kinds of churches can't they just invent a gay one?
If its about calling gay union a marriage then i can't believe anyone would object.
I might add that i think only religious people should get married in church.
I don't understand why anyone wants to get marries - gay or straight. Lets just ban the whole institution of marriage then there will be no problems will there?
(I think) this is about the marriage laws, as opposed to making the churches want to do something they don't want to do.
There should be one (and one only) marriage law. Simple as that.
To give you an idea of how absolutely ridiculous the current laws are, I'm going to have to get personal but I think it is worth it...
If I was to meet someone and fall in love with them tomorrow, a girl lets say, then ( as a trans woman) I would need to marry them. Trouble is; to be granted my new birth certificate later in the year, I would then need to annul that successful marriage as two people of the same sex cannot be married. I would then need to enter a civil partnership with the same person.
That is simply ridiculous - we are both exactly the same people - why should my identity change whether I need one type of "marriage" or the other? Will I no longer be in a "proper marriage"?
Stupid
Rachel (feeling ever so slightly exposed)
Jeez Rach, a "normal" wedding is enough of a headache. There are obviously a lot of out of date laws that need sorting.
From now on a marriage should be between 2 people who love each other.
That's simplified it.
No doubt someone will turn up who wants to get hitched to 2 people or their car!
I must admit I'm disappointed the dictionary definitions thing didn't get at least one little LOL 🙁 That felt like a gift from the gods too.
old person with old set of beliefs. just an old guy. whether you want to ascribe to a stupid old belief system is your choice. It's tired old bullshit. move on humans!
I might add that i think only religious people should get married in church.
Except that they've got such great architecture, which is why I got married in one.
As it is, I think the Catholic Church are in danger of making themselves look ever more ridiculous, were that to be possible. Their ingrained child abuse (both the acts themselves and the cover up) have removed a huge amount of their perceived authority, and to now shout that the end of the world is coming because of those evil gayers is simply ludicrous.
I was in Spain a few weeks back, and didn't notice any sudden end-of-the-world moments, yet this very Catholic country has had legalised gay marriage for seven or eight years. Lots of gay people get married - politicians, army, royals - and none of the institutions have dissolved.
I'd like to get married in a church for aesthetic reasons, but im not religious. I was thinking people could take over churches that fall into disuse and run them as a secular licensed marriage venue 🙂
I was told recently that you're not allowed to play music with any religious connection in a registry office. Even Ode to Joy is out apparently.
Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, accused the cardinal of "scaremongering".She said: "I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk.
"I think that the government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. [b]It is a purely civil matter[/b]."
So have a civil partnership (earthly bonding), not a marriage (heavenly bonding). You get the same rights but you don't piss people off just for the sake of it. If people want to be homosexual that is sound, just dont expect to change something thats been a religious institution for the past couple thousand years just so you can wear a dress in a church before you get taken up the aisle.
Yes but a civil partnership is not a marriage - some gay folk want a non religious marriage - a subtle but important to some difference
not a marriage (heavenly bonding).
The enormous flaw in all this [i]"the bible says X about marriage"[/i] nonsense is that I had a [u]marriage[/u] ceremony, and I am [u]married[/u], in a [u]marriage[/u], whatever, but the church, religion and "heavenly bonding" was never involved in any way. And I suspect there are many thousands like me in the UK.
So if I'm allowed to do that then why on earth should a same-sex couple be forbidden from it?
It's just another of organised religion's death throes.
a marriage (heavenly bonding)
...and "heaven" is, what, exactly? ...and where, exactly?
Why we are expected to still get interested in these pronouncements from the half-witted representatives of risible superstitious cults who make a living out of wearing silly clothing and talking gibberish, is beyond me, frankly.
"Edukator" (the forum's most oxymoronic name) is a fine example of the "argument from desperation" stance.
Gay people getting married is simply a normal and unremarkable part of everyday life.
Exept to homophobes. Whereaver they come from.
If people want to be homosexual that is sound,
Interesting. Did you become a Hetrosexual by wanting to be Hetrosexual?
... just dont expect to change something thats been a religious institution for the past couple thousand years ...
Like drowning witches.
Honest question - what's the difference between a Civil Partnership and a hetero-marriage in a civil ceremony?
As much as I disagree with his views, I respect the right of leaders of the Catholic Church (and any other church) to voice an orthodox interpretation of their faith.
Rather that than Coffee-shop catholicism or coffee-shop freedom expression where people merely pick and choose what they want to hear/allow.
A bit of reflection perhaps - mocking religious figure is no better than mocking others. Take the moral high ground and respect their views (RC Church) even when they appear intolerant.
Honest question - what's the difference between a Civil Partnership and a hetero-marriage in a civil ceremony?
Not a lot and that's the point.
From the article:
[i]"Civil partnerships were introduced in 2005 to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, but the law does not allow such unions to be referred to as marriages."[/i]
Why should a same-sex couple be legally banned from calling themselves "married" when an atheist hetero couple who had a civil ceremony, can use the term without question?
If we're going to invent a new term then why not introduce it purely for those into church approved "heavenly bondage"?
Take the moral high ground and respect their views (RC Church) even when they appear intolerant.
Should intolerant views not be challenged? Mocking could be argued as a way of challenging these views.
I have respect for both believers and homosexuals, the only way I can reconcile that is to ask homosexuals to invent a name for their union that does not offend believers.
So there was no marriage before christianity? otherwise how could they "own" the terminology? if marriage were an indication of religious partnership then very many people would be comfortable with the church defining the rules. However it is not, you can have a civil wedding ceremony where in fact as grum points out religion in any form is excluded from the ceremony.
Edukator - we already have something "similar" to Marriage for gay people. It is called "Civil Partnership" (unlike French PACS this "option" is not open to heterosexual couples, and therefore suggests a 2 tier 'marraige' scheme, even though in reality for 99.99% of stuff the rights of Civil Partners and Married Couples is the same). The point that I think AdamW makes very well is in Britain everybody already calls Civil Partners, Married, and talks of "Weddings". Language is already ahead of the legal definition. The law is just catching up with society now.
I'd like to get married in a church for aesthetic reasons, but im not religious. I was thinking people could take over churches that fall into disuse and run them as a secular licensed marriage venue
I've often thought how much richer and better protected the archtecture in this country could be if all assests of the church (C of E, Catholics et al) were handed over to English Heritage/National Trust. Of course they'd need the churches associated financial and human resources to maintain them too. Be interesting to see if it would work, and if everyone died a 'spiritual' death too...!!
Should intolerant views not be challenged? Mocking could be argued as a way of challenging these views.
Certainly and possibly - but much better ways of challenging these views IMHO.
Ah, right, so we have gay marrriage, we're just not allowed to call it gay marriage? Genius.
So, I guess my next question would be, if I was a gay civil-partnered chap, why would I care? I've made the public commitment to my partner, as they have to me, we have the legal rights that it brings, and if anyone asks, I'd say I was married and he was my husband. I suppose there might be some official forms where I'd have to tick the 'Civil Partnership' box rather than the 'Married' box, but is that such a big deal?
And the Catholic church can think what it wants. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't agree with me. Live and let live.
I have to say that Cardinal O'Brien sounds like a right nob, however hasn't the idea of marriage always been a religious thing? If so and the church objects to same sex marriages then it seems to me that's up to them.
If you're gay and want to get married then why not just get one of those civil partnership things and tell everyone you're married? I doubt anyone else will notice the difference or care.
I'm not married but have been with my 'partner' for nearly 8 years, lived together for 6 years, and have two lovely kids. We love the bones of each other but might never get married because we can't be bothered with all the fuss and expense, maybe when we haven't got small shoes to buy we'll book a registry office and go to the pub afterwards. Nobody treats us any differently because we haven't got a piece of paper telling us how we feel about each other.
This isn't meant to be as provocative as it probably sounds, but do gay folks want to get married because they love each other and want to show that commitment (in which case why do they care what the church thinks, just get a civil partnership thing), or because they want to prove to people how much they love each other (in which case why do they care what anyone thinks, and do you think being married will really help)?
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads." -- Leviticus 19:27
"When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening." -- Leviticus 15:19-20
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." -- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
This is some script from Life of Brian, right?
[i]This isn't meant to be as provocative as it probably sounds, but do gay folks want to get married because they love each other and want to show that commitment (in which case why do they care what the church thinks, just get a civil partnership thing), or because they want to prove to people how much they love each other (in which case why do they care what anyone thinks, and do you think being married will really help)?[/i]
I agree, and would extend the sentiment to marriage generally
My thoughts exactly.So, I guess my next question would be, if I was a gay civil-partnered chap, why would I care? I've made the public commitment to my partner, as they have to me, we have the legal rights that it brings, and if anyone asks, I'd say I was married and he was my husband. I suppose there might be some official forms where I'd have to tick the 'Civil Partnership' box rather than the 'Married' box, but is that such a big deal?
Actually until very recently it didn't even occur to me that Civil Partnership referred to same sex 'marriages' - I'd just assumed it was the new phrase for the common law wife type thing and have had this as my marital status at work since I joined the company. This thread has just reminded me to go into the HR tool and change my marital status from Civil Partnership to Married. No idea if that's correct but there was no option for 'living in sin', I wonder if this is a breach of my European Human Rights? 🙂
[Edited to add clarity]
hasn't the idea of marriage always been a religious thing?
No. [url= http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/ ]Marriage in the UK has been legally non-religious since 1836[/url]. You can have a religious ceremony if you want, go nuts, but the marriage itself is a legal thing overseen by the state and has had nothing to do with sky-wizards for nearly 200 years.
Honest question - what's the difference between a Civil Partnership and a hetero-marriage in a civil ceremony?
This isn't a definitive list by any means:
Marraige must be a "public" ceremony with spoken words (presumably? there is the option to do this in sign language?). Civil partnership (although most do have a ceremony) doesn't require one and can just be done by signatures on paper. I believe there are some heterosexual couples who would like this option - without the need for a public ceremony. Less information about the partners is also made available in the public domain.
A civil partnership cannot be performed by a minister of religion (if you found one willing). I believe this would also exclude Humanists from performing the official procedure. They can of course bless the union, but not when the registrar is involved in the ceremony/signing.
All normal legal "entitlements" with regard Tax, Inheretance, etc apply just as for married couples.
And civil partners of peers don't get a customary title!