(March 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Again...what about the word marriage is SO magical other than your arbitrary choice that it only means between a man and a woman? Or your church's arbitrary choice, I should say?

Why then are same sex couples so hung up on calling their partnerships marriage, turn your own thinking onto them, they are the ones determined to have the change, I want to retain the status quo. If as you imply there is nothing so magical about the word marriage, why be so determined to get rid of the term civil partnership?

It's a matter of equality, Stat, though at this point I don't think you're ever going to understand what that means....

I'll tell you this Stat, why aren't religionists like you happy with marrying in the church only? Why do you have to get married in the state? Mabe we should do as Tiberius say, no state sponsored marriage, just the marriage in churches, without the benefits the state grants upon them?

(March 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: It's a matter of equality, Stat, though at this point I don't think you're ever going to understand what that means....

So you define inequality as having a different term to distinguish it from something else even though it has the same rights under the law? So, do we now need to abolish the terms "male" & "female" because this is an inequality? Having terms which distinguish or describe two different forms of union isn't an inequality.

---

(March 19, 2012 at 1:48 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I'll tell you this Stat, why aren't religionists like you happy with marrying in the church only? Why do you have to get married in the state? Mabe we should do as Tiberius say, no state sponsored marriage, just the marriage in churches, without the benefits the state grants upon them?

If you look at the history of marriage it was only due to the Lutherans who thought it was not a sacrament, but a "worldly thing" that state marriages came about. So i'm all in favour of returning marriage back to the Church only and removing state involvement. Have marriages in churches only and civil partnerships by the state all having equal validity in the law. I'd be happy with that. In fact I would go even further and say only married couples can claim to be husband and wife, civil partnerships would simply be know as a "my civil partner" to distinguish between the two.

lol. Maintaining the status quo.

Jesus.

Any chance of tabling this and getting back to us when the UK ACTUALLY tries to use aw to force unwilling churches to perform gay marriages? The slope isn't that slippery, I don't think you'll find many atheists who think a church should be forced to perform a gay marriage, or for that matter, many gay couples that want to get married in a church that is only doing so under legal threat.

Stat doesn't care, just as long as zir's precious definition isn't touched.

(March 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Stat doesn't care, just as long as zir's precious definition isn't touched.

I'm fine with same sex civil partnerships just don't hijack the term marriage..If you're a Stan don't call yourself Loretta

Why not?

Ashley's can be either or.

Don't be ridiculous - even "gender roles" are changing.

(March 19, 2012 at 2:22 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Stat doesn't care, just as long as zir's precious definition isn't touched.

I'm fine with same sex civil partnerships just don't hijack the term marriage..If you're a Stan don't call yourself Loretta

Stop going back to that some bloody Monty Python quote, no-one laughed the first time you brought it up.

Until we use the same term for same sex and opposite sex partnerships, they will never feel equal.