[Closed] The church and homosexuality

Heterosexuals can marry who they like,

No, they can't.

They can marry any person of the opposite sex (if the other consents, obviously)

It is also discrimination that heterosexuals can't enter into a civil partnership with who they like, but homosexuals can.

Oh, this is an interesting point. Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

[img] [/img]

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry. Homesexuals cannot.

There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe

Except at the moment there is;

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consomethingion will no longer be part of the contract. Some opponents to same sex marriages believe that this devalues the marriage of heterosexual couples and that by removing a historically significant aspect of the marriage contract the new ‘thing’ is no longer a marriage but something different, marriage MK2?

To some people I know the whole consomethingion thing was a big deal, they were married as virgins and the act of consomethingion was sealing the deal, to be fair they are deeply religious people and I would imagine them to be in an ever decreasing minority. To me it didn’t even cross my mind because neither of us are religious and we weren’t in the no sex before marriage camp.

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

That's not at all true, and I have the restraining order to prove it!

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal contract of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

Not so:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consomethingion+of+marriage

No, you have the same right to marry a woman as any other man.

*and who reciprocated obviously

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Assuming consent, anyway.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn't complicated stuff.

irelanst
under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

So what's the definition? My dictionary says "sexual intercourse".
There's no good reason for any of this anti-gay discrimination. It's vulgar, anachronistic bigotry, full stop.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn't complicated stuff.

Except that you have made 4 presumptions without any basis

Why would a straight man [i]only [/i]want to marry a woman?

You're clutching at straws.

It's a bit pathetic, to be honest.

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

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.

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.

There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe. This is because there is no such thing as a 'man' and a 'woman', everyone is different.

Bang on.

There are more differences between people of the same sex than there are between people of different sexes. To say otherwise is to define someone by their gender, rather than as an individual.

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.

 

I'm the eldest of five:

I was allowed to marry the person I love.
The older of my brothers was allowed to marry the person he loves.
The older of my sisters was allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my sisters was not allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my brothers is single. He may or may be not allowed to marry the person he loves when he finds them. (We're not too sure about him.)

If you can't see the issue here, there's probably no hope for you.

You're clutching at straws.

It's a bit pathetic, to be honest.

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don't you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

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. [b]We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women.[/b] Your argument holds no water.

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.

What nonsense.

Your argument holds no water.

But if a bearded sky wizard told me in my dreams?

I was allowed to marry the person I love

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don't you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

What nonsense.

Seems to make sense to me, if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

Why would a straight man only want to marry a woman?

I am going to go out on a limb here but is it for money 🙄

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

if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

I suggest you look at them naked

HTH

Also, Grimy:

it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight

Do you find every woman attractive?

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.

😆

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