(March 19, 2012 at 4:32 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm still hearing it. How about the rest of y'all?

Yep. Even though he's backpedaled quite a bit from the start.

I'm tellin' you, it just sounds so much like people bitchin' about blacks down here in the South.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:32 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm still hearing it. How about the rest of y'all?

So if religious institutions were free to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples, would that still not be enough in your opinion?

This cretin reminds me of that "Evolved Atheist" aka Charlie fucker who kept calling in on the Atheist Experience last year playing linguistic word games because he was a dishonest bigot who couldn't handle the eventuality of gay couples getting married.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Thats EXACTLY what the proposals are suggesting for same sex marriage. You wonder why we're all incredulous.

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice...48356xhlqw

So I repeat. What exactly is your problem. Is it literally the word marriage, even when it makes a clear distinction for religions like yours.

"The government does not propose to open up religious marriage to same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?" is Question 5 by the way. Like I said in my very very first post. You have been misled about these proposals.

No it is not what the proposals are suggesting, they are wanting marriage not civil ceremonies. If it were simply a case of allowing civil partnerships to be performed in willing religious institutions there would not be such an opposition to the proposals. It is because they want religious marriage ceremonies to be allowed by willing religious institutes, and for it to be recognised and called a marriage, the distinction is important

Isn't that what they're asking for?

They want to be able to get "married" in a church. And the gov't is changing the law from it being a civil partnership to a civil marriage, which means that somewhere along the line there is a difference.

So, as I don't give a flying fuck what people want to do to denote their companionship to each other, but do want people to have equal shares, then I'm okay with civil marriages being performed in church, though I wish that it didn't mean dick all coming from a priest or preacher, since churches don't pay taxes for their authority.

So please, explain to me again what your problem is? The word?

No, because it's still not marriage. There are various benefits for being in a marriage rather than a civil partnership. For example, in the UK, there are proposals for tax cuts for married people.

Oh, I see.

Ze is still afraid the gov't will force the church to say homosexuality is okay.

No one's telling your church what to do, sugar, we've said that before. Quit backtracking, or actually read what we write.

You know it's funny how people are debating gay marriage so hotly when traditional heterosexual marriage is failing because more people these days don't feel the necessity for having a ceremony and getting a piece of paper before living together. Yet I don't hear fundie Christians worrying about that.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:47 pm)StatCrux Wrote: So if religious institutions were free to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples, would that still not be enough in your opinion?

19 pages ago, this very proposal was the "all out war on the church", and now you appear to be supporting it.

Watch where you backpedal, you're liable to hurt yourself.