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:

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 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. It is a purely civil matter.”

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 “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?

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:
“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.”

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?

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 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?

My thoughts exactly.

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. Marriage in the UK has been legally non-religious since 1836. 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!