[Closed] The church and homosexuality

😆

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

Oh! that was very clever! I see what you did there, just a subtle change of wording! You are Oliver Goldsmith and I claim my £5!

OK singletracked if you're gonna act* stupid I'm not gonna bother, lawyers get paid a shedload of money for arguing semantics, I don't. Please see my previous assessment of your argument.

*yes I said act wasn't a personal insult for someone who says they're in favour of same sex marriage (atleast I think that's what you said) you're doing a hell of a lot of arguing for the naysayers side of it.

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

Steady on there tiger, At what point did I say I was against anyone getting married? Just because I have a basic grasp of the current law doesn’t mean I agree wholly with it.

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

The first, definitely. The second, probably a bit of that as well but it’s a big word to be bandying around and by labeling anyone who disagrees with your point of view as a bigot de-values it in my eyes.

EDIT:
Hold on a sec: the law states the marriage is voidable, 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.

Yes, voidable, as in not a legally binding contract.

Also David Cameron is actually going to change the law in this respect.

Yes it is likely that the law will be changed which is why I stated in my first post; “So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consomethingion will no longer be part of the contract”

OK singletracked if you're gonna act* stupid I'm not gonna bother, lawyers get paid a shedload of money for arguing semantics, I don't. Please see my previous assessment of your argument.

so you don't know either?

*yes I said act wasn't a personal insult for someone who says they're in favour of same sex marriage (atleast I think that's what you said) you're doing a hell of a lot of arguing for the naysayers side of it.

I am in favour of same sex marriage, for everyone

edit for clarity, i mean the option of, not enforced

Grimy - Member
now your the intolerant one

Ah, the default position for those of the [url= http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2010/12/01/not-ashamed-you-should-be/ ]Overprivileged Church of Unmerited Victimhood[/url] - article includes this gem of a quote from Lord Justice Laws:

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

"the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself."

Marvellous

I thought so.

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.

Bandying the term "bigot" about can cause upset and there's a fair bit of confusion about the subject but if you read and understand the for argument and your only counter argument is "but its two men ewww" or "it's just not right" then you're getting pretty close to bigot territory. You don't have to have your own gay marriage or embrace the idea of gay relationships, you just have to allow them the same rights straight people have.

you just have to allow them the same rights straight people have.

yes, and straight people should have those rights too

OK, the law is not discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men.
Thanks for clarifying that.

...so what?

lifer can you translate that for me please? I don't speak posh

OK, the law is not discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men.
Thanks for clarifying that.

...so what?

It was other folks that got upset with the idea. But some folks did and still do think that we are wrong

OK, the law is not [i]technically[/i] discrimination based on sexuality, because it also prevents straight men marrying straight men [i]but in effect it is working against gay people[/i]
Thanks for clarifying that.
[i]But semantics aside[/i]...so what?

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.

Its a pointless debate everyone knows one side gets to say intolerant to the other

We are either intolerant of the religious being allowed to dictate to others who they can marry even though they are not of that faith or we are intolerant of those who wish to marry someone the religious disapprove of.

Whatever way you decide you infringe on someone else choice.

I am not sure whether folk thought you were wrong as to thought it was pointless point as it is highly unlikely a heterosexual will want to marry someone of the same sex [ one per century worldwide?] - I am not aware of any campaigning for this right but they might all just be in the closet. I do know a gay couple who married each other so he could stay in the country [man and woman] - thankfully god and the church approved of that union

OK, the law is not technically discrimination based on sexuality,

I wish you had all said this in the first place instead of spending 3 pages arguing about it

sorry but you don't have the right not to be upset about something that in this case is just offering the same rights to same sex couples that mixed sex couple currently enjoy.
Bandying the term "bigot" about can cause upset and there's a fair bit of confusion about the subject but if you read and understand the for argument and your only counter argument is "but its two men ewww" or "it's just not right" then you're getting pretty close to bigot territory. You don't have to have your own gay marriage or embrace the idea of gay relationships, you just have to allow them the same rights straight people have.

Sorry I think we're arguing two different points. I have no problem with gay partnership. I agree with you, I think they should absolutely have the same rights. I think all religion should respect and bless this union. I haven't ever counter argued that "it's a bit ewww" if that's what you think I've been saying you've not understood my points as I tried very hard to put across. Perhaps your not really reading and actually thinking about my earlier discussions. My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman. To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning. Nothing to do with religion and beardy men.

I don't accept that at all because it's completely fallacious.

Steady on there tiger, At what point did I say I was against anyone getting married? Just because I have a basic grasp of the current law doesn’t mean I agree wholly with it.

Yep fair play to you - I learnt something from your contribution, so thanks.

So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consomethingion will no longer be part of the contract

Couldn't the "act of consomethingion" just be broadened a little to include sexual relations, rather than just "ordinary" sexual intercourse?

Mind you it does seem very odd to have something in law saying "You must shag them or the deal is off" anyway 😕

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman.

Really? Says who?

Mr Woppit - Member

"My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman."

Really? Says who?

Religion and beardy men.

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman.

Not so very long ago marriage was the unique union between a man and woman [i]under God[/i].

Definitions change.

Or has letting atheists marry completely ruined it?

(Personally I was quite glad they dropped that part in time for me to get married, as I didn't want a foundation of my marriage to be based on something I didn't believe in.)

Permanent/semipermanent union as a survival/biological thing does obviously lean towards man + woman (or man + women) as a partnership for rearing young.

Which is all fine, but it's no reason for sticking to that formula in the present day.

Marriage applies to inanimate objects too: The marriage of tomato juice and vodka to create a Bl**dy Mary! It's a commonly used noun used in everyday speech to describe a joining/mixing/union type thing. Nothing deep or meaningful in it's use these days.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women. Your argument holds no water.

Bisexuals.

Next?

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

As opposed to what? Giraffes? Privet hedges?

A straight man could hypothetically want to marry another man for some reason. Can't think of one offhand though. Assuming this to be the case though, what's your point? That a highly unlikely fringe case proves that there's no discrimination?

If you're arguing that neither a gay man nor a straight man can marry another man therefore it's not discrimination based on sexual preference, then it's discrimination based on gender. Women can marry men but men cannot.

Here's an analogy. Let's say interracial marriage was illegal. White men can marry white women and black men can marry black women, but a black man cannot marry a white woman. By your argument, this is absolutely fine as there's no racial discrimination here. Black people and white people can both get married.

My point all along is that marriage is the description of a unique union between a man and woman. To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning.

It [i]expands[/i] the definition to be more inclusive. Its existing meaning doesn't change; ie, the 'between a man and a woman' bit wouldn't change one iota, men and women will still be just as married as they always were. So even assuming you're right, I'm not sure as I understand your objection, other than a desire for exclusivity. Will allowing those gayers to get married somehow diminish the value of your marriage?

Time to wheel out the Feldman quote again 😛

[img] [/img]

If you're arguing that neither a gay man nor a straight man can marry another man therefore it's not discrimination based on sexual preference, then it's discrimination based on gender. Women can marry men but men cannot.

But women can marry people of the other gender and so can men, then the discrimination based on gender disappears. Now who's getting all semantic?

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like 😛 I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Edit. And thank you to those in this thread who refrained from insult and instead used intellect. Appreciated.

Here's an analogy. Let's say interracial marriage was illegal. White men can marry white women and black men can marry black women, but a black man cannot marry a white woman. By your argument, this is absolutely fine as there's no racial discrimination here. Black people and white people can both get married.

I'm trying to draw parallels with the analogy, it demonstrates when you change the ruling, you change it for both groups. Banning inter-racial marriage is a bad thing for both groups. But i think saying that banning same-sex marriage is anti-gay, would be like saying that banning interracial marriage is anti-black. I think, I'm not entirely sure the analogy holds

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.
If you want to try and engage others who think differently as we'll, may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Gayer!

If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

dnftt - Member
If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

fixeder?

and i know it's just a joke, but it just reveals a reductionist view of homsexuality

Permanent/semipermanent union as a survival/biological thing does obviously lean towards man + woman (or man + women) as a partnership for rearing young.

Yeah, we keep coming back to this. Historically, a big reason for marriage was to breed, especially when some religions get involved. Isn't it Catholicism that not only requires consomethingion, but doesn't consider consomethingion valid unless it's performed without birth control? Gotta start squeezing out those true believers as soon as possible, folks.

So then it gets trotted out as an excuse for excluding same-sex partnerships from being able to marry. Gay people can't procreate, see. The problem is that this falls flat for any number of other reasons. Disability and age, as others have mentioned; sexual disfunction (eg, impotence); disinterest; infertility; and that's all before we even consider couples who simply don't want children.

The fact is that an ability to reproduce, or even to have sex, is not a prerequisite for couples to be able to marry. So using as a reason to preclude same-sex marriage is disingenuous.

Now who's getting all semantic?

Fight fire with fire. We can both be ludicrous if you think it'll help.

Ive given it all some more thought and i Think I'm starting to fall off the fence towards you. We can call all union a marriage if you like I guess it doesn't hurt me or change the special thing I share with my wife so fill your boots and may you be happy.

\o/

Thank you.

I haven't ever counter argued that "it's a bit ewww" if that's what you think I've been saying you've not understood my points as I tried very hard to put across

I think all religion should respect and bless this union

To call a gay partnership marriage changes its meaning

may I suggest you respect their current views and tackle them with lesser words than bigot.

Yeah, you can suggest it. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

No Singletracked it means that if two things are not the same then why use the same term.

Lolz at post count being 666

Ruined it now

Fight fire with fire. We can both be ludicrous if you think it'll help

Nevertheless, i did engage with your argument. I don't think my argument was based semantics.

If the term Marriage is wanted for Homosexual partnersips, should gay men's bum holes be renamed as Vaginas?

Steady now..... you're getting close to insult. 🙁

No Singletracked it means that if two things are not the same then why use the same term

Then i apologise, i thought you were implying that in gay sex that the bum was used as a proxy vagina. If nothing else this is an unimaginative view

Banning inter-racial marriage is a bad thing for both groups.

Is it? Why? Both groups can get married, so what's the problem?

But i think saying that banning same-sex marriage is anti-gay, would be like saying that banning interracial marriage is anti-black. I think, I'm not entirely sure the analogy holds

They're both forms of prejudice. You may well be right in that "anti-gay" may not be an appropriate term, but a) I don't think anyone (other than you, just then) has actually said it's anti-gay and b) getting the right terminology, or not, doesn't really change the actual problem in hand. Which is that, in both cases people cannot marry the person they love because of some unnecessary, arbitrary discrimination; whether that's anti-somedemographic or not is neither here nor there really.