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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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”

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.

I was allowed to marry the person I love

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

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

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 only want to marry a woman?

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?

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

Heterosexuals can marry who they like,

No, they can’t.

Well, it may be something else, but its not discrimination is it?

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

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

maybe ‘manriage’ ?
better create a similar one for women too, ‘cos dem bitches be crazy

It’s not a union within the Church, but it is within that church, is it not? So if ultimately it’s not legally binding but just a blessing, and if the couple recognise the church and the church the couple, what more ‘meaning’ is required here?

Yeah, i only mean that if it’s approved by the folks you want to approve it then it, then that’s fine. but if the folks whose approval you want, don’t approve it, but you find a loophole, you still know it doesn’t count, for yourself

Actually – in many cases it means people think that the definition of the word ‘marriage’ is heterosexual.

I think semantically at least, they may be right. Though I imagine dictionary definitions may have been updated recently to reflect the vox populi

Sorry, glitchy glitchy ya ya

.

.

Ascertaining which scenario was / is ultimately more common is more work that I’m prepared to put in just to point-score on a forum,

then you lose!!!! 😀

To whom?

I mean, if you’re a splinter of a religion going against established doctrine, the ceremony might be ‘meaningless’ to the parent religion, but might mean quite a lot to everyone else.

sure, but then the ceremony is not performed within the parent church. That’s what i meant by meaningless. if you ignored what the parent church told you, doctrinally, but went through the motions in a church. It wouldn’t be a union within the church

Here’s a question. If a Catholic church were to defy his Papalness and marry a same-sex couple, would it be legally binding?

No, but then no ‘union’ in the Catholic church is legally binding. The church only provides a blessing, the legal bit is the registry stuff, which is where the law says you cannot marry same sex, the church at lest has scope to bless the union, even if the law won’t allow it

ok, but if you fancy it, try these guys

Home

Does it? Or does it just show that some people choose to ignore it sometimes?

it does, because if it didn’t then ignoring it would make the ceremony meaningless

I think you have it,

So, the Christian faiths either need to update their doctrine to reflect modern values, or they need to educate their followers as to where they’re going wrong.

I think we would have more faith in the integrity of churches if they did the latter, even if it went against our own views, rather than change their teachings to ingratiate themselves with the masses (npi)

History would suggest that the latter is more likely to happen. I’d really like it if this weren’t the case, which is why we atheists keep raising it as a topic of discussion.

Where are you in the NE?

I always used one when i was up there, which is now in the Good garage scheme. Small operation and lots of good feedback online.

Having said that, i think most garages get someone in to do the electrics.

Personal Doctrine ? Religious Views? Organised Religious Belief .

Let’s all stop mixing these up.

Yes, I agree!

That survey proves that not only are the church leadership out of touch with the general public, they’re out of touch with their members.

True, but I don’t think the Catholic church is led by the views of its flock. I’m pretty sure it’s not a democracy or run by referendum

Adds weight to my argument re sense of humour though

Perhaps, but then we all look dull and lugubrious when compared to the sparkling wit and repartee you have displayed

Oooh! look!

A 2011 report based on telephone surveys of American Catholics conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 43% support same-sex marriage, 31% support civil unions, and 22% oppose any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship. 56% believe that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not sinful. 73% favor anti-discrimination laws, 63% support the right of gay people to serve openly in the military, and 60% favor allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.[6][44] A 2012 Pew Forum survey which asked American Catholic respondents if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage found that 52% supported it and 37% opposed it.[45] Catholic support of gay rights is thus higher than that of other Christian groups and of the general population

A pivotable what?

*sigh* – that’s just patently untrue, where do you think this quote comes from?

Dunno, tradition?

What do they mean by ‘natural law’?

What did I initially claim then?

this…

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong.

It’s utterly ridiculous to claim that, in general, christians aren’t at the very least disapproving of homosexuality. And you know it.

Oh right, yes that’s a much more convincing argument! 🙄

Let me try

It’s utterly ridiculous to claim that, in general, Christians as a single group, share very much in common at all. And you know it.

.