[Closed] attention seeker needs more publicity....

"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!>

"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.

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

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?

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!

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?

To take it to an extreme, if public transport was segregated into gay/straight, with identical standards of seating, etc would that still be ok?

In a sense you're right in that it makes no direct, measurable difference whether gay people can get married because they can have civil partnerships but it's still different and therefore unequal/discriminatory. To me, that's wrong. Simple.

hasn't the idea of marriage always been a religious thing?

Nope. As I and several others have said, it is very common to get married in a civil ceremony without any religious bits at all.

So, I guess my next question would be, if I was a gay civil-partnered chap, why would I care?

They have spoken and said they do care. (Not exactly surprising I would too!)

...and "heaven" is, what, exactly? ...and where, exactly?

It's a place on Earth! I heard it from a reputable source...

well my wife and i got married in a zoo, was nothing to do with some imaginary god fellah

and all about me and my missus letting each other and our friends and family know that we plan on spending the rest of our lives together and perhaps more importantly organising a big pissup for said friends and family

Top quote from Ben Summerskill of Stonewall:

"Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is not to get married to someone of the same sex."

tonyd - Nobody treats us any differently because we haven't got a piece of paper telling us how we feel about each other.

Your friends and family may not - but all sorts of government institutions do.

Ignore what "gay people" think for a second. If we accept (as this country has done) that 2 people should be allowed to join in a union which confers the same legal rights and wrongs as marraige without the need for a formal ceremony (just signing a document) - [those rights might include certain tax powers, state benefits, inheretance rights, property rights on the death of a partner, stuff to do with kids etc. -- and generally are all agreed to be "good" things to have between two people who intend to spend the rest of their lives together] - then why can you and your partner not benefit from it? there is a slightly different form of "marriage" which you could sort out with no fuss and no expense (it costs less than £100). You are being discriminated against for being hetrosexual.

Now the same logic applies the otherway round, some (possibly a lot of) gay people aren't happy that their marriage is not on the same footing as everyone elses, has a different title (just to get the bill through parliament in 2004) and somehow says "not quite as good".

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.

Aye but if he was not in the frock and hat and being backed up by the book we would just call him a bigoted old fogey out of touch with reality and the modern world..oh hold on I have just had an idea 😀

Certainly and possibly - but much better ways of challenging these views IMHO.

The enormous flaw in all this "the bible says X about marriage" nonsense is that I had a marriage ceremony, and I am married, in a marriage, 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?

^ This. I'm an atheist, Mr Toast is an atheist, but we got married because we love each other and wanted the legal protection that marriage brings. We don't want kids, and he didn't ask any male relative for my hand in marriage, because that's quite frankly [i]bizarre[/i].

Couple of chaps at work got civilly unionised, but everyone just referred to the ceremony as 'a wedding', and then referred to their relationship as 'married', and refers to their roles as 'husband' and 'husband'. Its stupid that the legal terminology doesn't reflect the reality of their relationship.

To be fair, living in sin, whilst technically accurate, does automatically think that people are wallowing in gluttony, envy, etc every night, rather than just not getting a piece of paper signed.

Some of the longest relationships I have known, and the most loving, have been people that have either not been bothered enough to get married, or have not seen the point in it, and that covers the whole spectrum of sexual orientation, not just same sex couples.

Your friends and family may not - but all sorts of government institutions do

I don't feel like I'm being discriminated against for being hetero-sexual, nor do I really care if I am. I'm living my life to the best of my abilities with the people that I love. If I wanted to I'm sure I could find dozens of ways to feel discriminated against, I just choose to get on with life. If I were gay I can't imagine I'd think any differently so I can't really understand all the fuss.

living in sin, whilst technically accurate

How is the phrase "living in sin" even in the slightest bit "technically accurate" 😯

Is "Going to Hell" something for which a ticket can be purchased at National Rail Enquiries??

The mind truly boggles at how some of this religious terminology persists