The church and homosexuality

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

yes he may well do, can’t see there being lots of instances of it but equally I can’t see you managing to get much credibility for your argument (whatever it is) by using that.

Point of the matter is even if a straight bloke wanted to marry 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

Triple posting I can handle, but I find your lack of argument disturbing

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.

ah so that’s where you’re going with it. Nope sorry your word play argument is still bollocks.

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.
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/Consummation+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 consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate it.

So what’s the definition? My dictionary says “sexual intercourse”.

Consummation 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 consummate 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 consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate 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 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.

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 may be voidable

thats quite a long way from “marriage is not legal unless you have plain old boring vanilla sex”.

Are boys as good at kissing as girls?

oi don’t be coming on here with your sweeping generalisation, I’ve snogged a few girls some were good kissers some weren’t, haven’t done a comparison with blokes but pretty sure they’ll have the same mixed abilities groups 🙂

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?

depends who you are comparing and they tend to be a bit more stubly

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?

Sexy party?

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?

From the top…
Straight men who want to marry men

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

and an overwhelming majority of those people would be? 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?

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.

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 consummation 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 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.

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.

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

yes, and straight people should have those rights too