[Closed] The church and homosexuality

you can change "love" for "wanted to" if you want.

then we are back to the original question of "How can you say who anyone would want to marry"

FFS that is beyond clutching at straws and into the realms of the ludicrous

so i keep hearing, but always in place of an argument

You seem to be saying that a straight man could only ever want to marry a woman. What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

Your argument has been destroyed several times over.
Seriously.

Heterosexual couples may marry. Gay couples may not.
Discrimination, pure & simple.

Boring troll is bring no one else could drive down such a pointless blind alley

i go for another 5 pages of this

When you present one that is not ridiculous i will bother to respond with something other than chuckling/mocking it.

I may have some wait

Still you are certainly pulling them in so enjoy you " fame"

then we are back to the original question of "How can you say who anyone would want to marry"

Ok, so just answer these 2 questions satisfactorily and I'll stop this line of questioning.

What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

Incidentally, 'for love' is not clear enough an answer on its own

I wasn't suggesting who they should want to marry, that was the religious factions wasn't it?

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

What is the basis of that claim? What do you think is so central to marriage that that could be the only outcome?

I know several religions want that central thing to be "between 1 man and 1 woman" and they can keep that for their place of worship based rituals/services but for legality and everything else's sake nope sorry they can't.

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason

You keep trying to twist peoples arguments, is this where I claim you are someone else and claim my cash gift?

ok and for most / any on those reasons a straight man might want to marry another man.

but you are saying that a straight man would only want to marry a woman, for whatever reason
no I didn't I said I was lucky enough to be able to do what I happened to want to do.

Ok then, are you saying that a straight man might want to marry another man?

I'm not twisting arguments, I'm trying to understand other people's views

Bloody hell, can you not edit your posts? It's very bad form on a forum to double post, let alone triple...

overcomes the new page glitch issue, sorry if you find it confusing

Ok then, are you saying that a straight man might want to marry another man?

Point of the matter is even if a straight bloke wanted to [i]marry[/i] another bloke he currently can't and several organised religions want to keep it that way.

*edited due to some random mind dump in the middle when I originally posted

overcomes the new page glitch issue, sorry if you find it confusing

yes he may well do, can't see there being lots of instances of it

Just to clarify, the argument is that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Gay and straight are treated equally.

Neither can marry a person of the same sex.

What I would like is one (just one) of the religious arguers against, to admit that they are arguing for that corner simply because he/she (has there been a female religious objector so far, BTW?) is a bigot, plain and simple.

That would be progress.

singletracked - Member
Just to clarify, the argument is that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Gay and straight are treated equally.

Except, as has been said many times, they're quite clearly not!

EDITED FOR SINGLETRACKED'S WEASEL EDIT:

singletracked - Member
Neither can marry a person of the same sex.

Ridiculous. The discrimination is that straight couples can marry but gay couples cannot. Stop trying to play your boring semantic game and address the actual points.

Just to clarify, the argument is that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Gay and straight are treated equally.

[s]There's still 50(ish) percent of the UK population I'm still not allowed to marry should I wish. Primarily gay people will want same sex marriage, primarily straight people will want mixed sex marriage there will be variations and that's fine but the current rules are primarily discriminating against gay people.[/s]
sod all that I'll stick with "your argument is bollocks".

Except, as has been said many times, they're quite clearly not!

I know it has been said many times, but that doen't make it true or convincing

EDITED FOR SINGLETRACKED'S WEASEL EDIT:

erm... it wasn't a weasel edit

Not so:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consomethingion+of+marriage

‘Tis so in the UK 🙂
Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage is voidable if it has not been consomethinged due to the incapacity of either party to consomethinge it.

So what's the definition? My dictionary says "sexual intercourse".

Consomethingion requires sexual intercourse which is “ordinary and complete”.

I don't remember reading that in the terms of my marriage contract?
In fact I don't recall ever reading a marriage contract at all.

It’s in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Presumably this also excludes severely disabled people from getting married?
And some elderly folk. And well, any folk who just don't particularly want to consomethinge for whatever reason.

It doesn't prevent them from getting married, but as the law stands their marriages may be voidable.

Yes, gay men and straight men can both marry women.

Therefore, straight men can marry, gay men cannot.

[Through definition of Gay and Straight & assuming everyone wants to marry as their sexualities suggest]

Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage is voidable if it has not been consomethinged due to the incapacity of either party to consomethinge it.

Fair enough, hats off to you 🙂
Presumably the laws need to change for the law to change, though, right? 😉

Stop trying to play your boring semantic game and address the actual points.

I have, we've established that people get married for many reasons, romantic love is only one of them. For many of those reasons exist between a straight man might want to marry another.

It us not for us to say why two people might want to get married.

gay men and straight men can both marry women

And, neither gay men or straight men can marry a man.

Therefore, where's the discrimination?

😉

Yes, yes, I know, this isn't the actual issue etc etc ...

It doesn't prevent them from getting married, but as the law stands their marriages may be voidable.

So you're against disabled people/elderly people being able to marry too?

Either the law is an ass or there is a lot of bigotry about.

EDIT:

Hold on a sec: the law states the marriage is [b]voidable[/b], not void. This means it may be deemed void if either side contests it or an external entity that has standing does. Also David Cameron is actually going to change the law in this respect.

singletracked - Member

"Stop trying to play your boring semantic game and address the actual points."
I have, we've established that people get married for many reasons, romantic love is only one of them. For many of those reasons exist between a straight man might want to marry another.

It us not for us to say why two people might want to get married.

Why people want to get married has no bearing on their ability to get married so I don't see what it has to do with this debate. Except to move it away from the actual, idefensible bigotry at the heart of the objections to gay marriage and try to frame it as something other than some peoples irrational intolerance.

Either the law is an ass or there is a lot of bigotry about

More likely both these things are true

Presumably the laws need to change for the law to change, though, right?

The law certainly needs to change, you'll get no argument from me on that one. But, I understand why some people have objections and wouldn't condemn them all as bigots because they hold different beliefs to me.

Are boys as good at kissing as girls?

Has anyone snogged both to allow a comparison?

Sorry, just thinking aloud, as you were chaps..

but as the law stands their marriages[b] may be voidable[/b]

Are boys as good at kissing as girls?

Could you clarify your argument for me

Is it that there is discrimination but not based on sexuality as no male can marry another male whether they are gay or a a heterosexual?

If this is you argument could you explain why it is not discrimination as we still stop [some]people from marrying who they want to do but not everyone who wants to marry.

Are boys as good at kissing as girls?

oh and of course

Sorry, just thinking aloud, as you were chaps..

If this is you argument could you explain why it is not discrimination as we still stop [some]people from marrying who they want to do but not everyone who wants to marry.

You do stop some people from marrying who they want to, but not only gay people.

🙂

I just wondered.
In amongst all the earnest philosophical, theological, rational, intellectual debate it kind of comes down to snogging...

(and I'm not stubby, I'm just short for my weight..)

So its discrimination then as some folk cannot marry who they want and these folk are those who want to marry someone of the same sex - which would include a massive amount of oppressed heterosexual who are having a dabble for some reason..fashion tips? be honest we could all do with a bit of Gok in our lives [ IGMC]

Excellent
glad we cleared that up

What we doing for the next 5 pages then?

So its discrimination then as some folk cannot marry who they want and these folk are those who want to marry someone of the same sex

Yeah, probably, but I'm not sure what kind of discrimination, maybe discrimination against people who want to marry someone of their own sex, or people who want something they cannot have. But it's not discrimination based on sexuality.

What we doing for the next 5 pages then?

Who are the other people that you're preventing from marrying?

Sexy party?

Oh no! That's exactly what made start asking these questions!

Who are the other people that you're preventing from marrying?

Ok lets so who is the best kisser then 😉

Same sex sibling who want to "marry" for the tax breaks when they die

Should get some pages from that eh 😉

Same sex sibling who want to "marry" for the tax breaks when they die

Oh, you can't marry a sibling

oooops

maybe discrimination against people who want to marry someone of their own sex

singletracked - Member
maybe discrimination against people who want something [s]they[/s] people with no good reason say they cannot have. But it's not discrimination based on sexuality.

FTFY. And it is.

If I said people with a surname patel weren't allowed to do something, would you say oh that's just discrimination based on name so perfectly fine or would you think it seemed a bit you know, racist?

Not sure really, why would injunction on Patel be considered racist?

What I would like is one (just one) of the religious arguers against, to admit that they are arguing for that corner simply because he/she (has there been a female religious objector so far, BTW?) is a bigot, plain and simple.

That would be progress.

I'm pretty insecure about my religious beliefs, but you can call me spiritual if that's near enough.
I think bigot is a pretty strong word that describes hatred and intolerance. Bigoted intolerance and holding your own opinion whilst respecting that of others Is very different.

Calling gay partnership, marriage, does redefine and challenge my perception of what is marriage is. Does that really hurt me? I'm not sure....... You don't seem to care that's for certain. In your eyes I'm just wrong. That may or may not be true, but now your the intolerant one.