(March 19, 2012 at 10:36 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Fuck this nonsense of "conspiracy", what this all boils down to is that you are simply homophobic StatCrux.

Speaking as an asexual, you don't want gay couples having the same equality, rights and privileges as other people in society do. You've made this much apparent.

You may return to your untenable defence of the sexual abuse of countless minors by the Church and its clergy.

...

Fucking Catholics.

For that, I am going to bake you a Welsh Cake.

...I don't even know what a Welsh Cake is. Hahahaha.

The simple solution is this: make church weddings completely irrelevant to the state, and anything performed by the state to be considered a "civil union" of some sort across the board. Equal rights for all. That way the church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want - straight or gay. Civil union applications take care of automatic inheritance rights.

(March 19, 2012 at 10:37 am)StatCrux Wrote: Which all seems perfectly reasonable. Now in context, when discussing same sex marriage is is relevant or appropriate to introduce the issue of paedophilia? Or as I have said, is it a juvenile and ad hominem attack not relevant to the discussion? which was my original point on this subject.

Only in context of homosexuality itself, and preaching a moral authority on it.

In context of the thread itself, I am in 100% agreement, its time to return to the case in hand, catholic hypocrisy is too easy a target and not relevant.

So, where were we... were we still on the fact that churches have refused marriage on various grounds for 100s of years, and nothing in this amendment forces anything to change.
Some churches refuse to marry if you aren't a regular member of the congregation for instance.

You however, want to maintain that Gay Quakers and Unitarianists should not be allowed to get married under their religious banner in a religious ceremony, on the reasoning that you don't think their church is going to last, and everyone should do as your religion says.

I'm wary of putting words in your mouth (oh that was aching for a bad taste joke, but I resisted), so amend what you feel you were not saying.

EDIT: Also, I'd second the notion of making marriage an irrelevant legal position, and all partnerships should be civil partnerships, regardless of sexuality.

(March 19, 2012 at 10:44 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: The simple solution is this: make church weddings completely irrelevant to the state, and anything performed by the state to be considered a "civil union" of some sort across the board. Equal rights for all. That way the church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want - straight or gay. Civil union applications take care of automatic inheritance rights.

Yep, totally agree with that.as long as they are still recognised by the state fine..

Somehow I don't think that would fulfill the agenda of the people pushing same sex marriage....

Yes it would - because they'd have the same rights as straight people who didn't get married in a church. The church would be nothing but a spiritual binding - it would have no legal standing in court and you'd still have to apply with the state to merge your property and everything else.

---

Also, there is no goddamn gay agenda.

I dunno. I think we should keep marriage illegal for gays...

I mean, they're already dealing with enough bullshit from other people, last thing they need to do is hate each other. Heheh.

That joke was really unoriginal. :<

No but seriously. Marriage hasn't really been much of a spiritual thing for the last half-century or so. Well, it HAS, but it's been dwindling as such. We're at the point now where the "sacredness of marriage" is no longer applicable. Women are no longer forced to be stuck with abusive husbands, men are no longer forced to be stuck with unfaithful wives, and vice versa. The reason for marriage was originally union between two individuals who were only going to live to the ripe old age of like...33. Nowadays we're living up to like 120 in some extreme cases. If someone finds that perfect someone...fine. But these days, marriage is in the eye of the beholder. I know people who've been dating for a decade and are just fine. And I know people who have known each other for eight years, been married for two, and are at each others throats, and only got that way a short time after marriage. There's this whole...PERCEPTION, I guess, of marriage, that no longer applies to modern society. This thing with homosexual marriage? A footnote to the overarching problem; that "eternal union" just isn't as relevant these days as it used to be. It's no fault of society, it's just a change in times.

Hoc quod fiat, fiat.

(March 19, 2012 at 10:50 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Yes it would - because they'd have the same rights as straight people who didn't get married in a church. The church would be nothing but a spiritual binding - it would have no legal standing in court and you'd still have to apply with the state to merge your property and everything else.

---

Also, there is no goddamn gay agenda.

I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

(March 19, 2012 at 11:03 am)StatCrux Wrote: I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

No.. They want to be equal. Don't be a dick.

(March 19, 2012 at 11:03 am)StatCrux Wrote: I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

We do not have it in the UK. Marriage is still defined in law as the union of one man and one woman. It is still discriminatory against gay people, polygamists, etc. This isn't about rocking the boat, it's about equality.

Summer's idea would work, but I still worry about having the definition of marriage controlled by the government. It doesn't solve the problem for polygamists, which I foresee as the next big push for equality. Far better to have the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and let individuals decide what it means. It would also save the country money, since we would have to get rid of all the bonuses we give people who get married (which is in itself discriminatory against people who have no interest in getting married).

(March 19, 2012 at 11:03 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 10:50 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Yes it would - because they'd have the same rights as straight people who didn't get married in a church. The church would be nothing but a spiritual binding - it would have no legal standing in court and you'd still have to apply with the state to merge your property and everything else.

---

Also, there is no goddamn gay agenda.

I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

Which is why marriages of ALL kinds should just be plain simple "civil unions." If you want to do the "holy matrimony" thing, that's your prerogative, and, yeah, government shouldn't really have a say in that.