Oh, they worry about that too, but at least it isn't gay

anyway, have fun with him/her/it/they. I'm about to go to school.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:52 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: 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.

Could you define "cretin" for me?

(March 19, 2012 at 4:53 pm)StatCrux Wrote: No it is not what the proposals are suggesting, they are wanting marriage not civil ceremonies.

CIVIL marriage, and RELIGIOUS marriage. You have a clear distinction.

"Same-Sex Couples would not be eligible for a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises and through religious means." HOME OFFICE

(March 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(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.

Not at all, the proposal is for marriage not civil partnership there is a distinction, that is the issue

(March 19, 2012 at 4:55 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: 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.

I still don't get what the problem would be with the government forcing the church to say homosexuality is ok. I don't feel they should be allowed to discriminate against people anymore than anyone else, yet people get offended when told so.

(March 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 4:53 pm)StatCrux Wrote: No it is not what the proposals are suggesting, they are wanting marriage not civil ceremonies.

CIVIL marriage, and RELIGIOUS marriage. You have a clear distinction.

"Same-Sex Couples would not be eligible for a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises and through religious means." HOME OFFICE

EXACTLY the problem is the term marriage, the proposals are to allow civil "marriages" for same sex couples, not civil "partnerships" how many times do I have to state this? If the proposals were to allow civil partnerships to be performed by religious institutions, fine. Its the use of the term marriage that is the problem

(March 19, 2012 at 5:02 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Not at all, the proposal is for marriage not civil partnership there is a distinction, that is the issue

A CIVIL marriage, which means it can be conducted in a religious setting if the religion allows for it.
It specifically maintains a RELIGIOUS marriage is not allowed. Which is what you wanted.

The ONLY difference in the term is it being conducted in a religious setting WHEN the religion is happy for it to do so.
The government has repeatedly and explicitly said it would never impose a religious marriage on a religious institution to respect the ideals of a particular religion.

You can't even be bothered to understand the proposals properly, and all I can see is that I was right at the start of the thread.

Read up on the facts yourself, instead of overreacting based on how the proposals have been misrepresented to you.

You simply can't get over the word Marriage, even in religions that ACCEPT same-sex couples. The government bent over backwards to make you happy by making a clear distinction that it is CIVIL only.

You just want your religion to be the only one that has a say in it, and fuck the other religions.

What happened to respecting religious institutions, you clearly only mean respect YOUR religious institution and that should trump any other religion who shouldn't be respected.

I'm done now, I don't think anything more can be said. I hope you realise that you are causing more harm to your cause through your overreaction, than if you simply accepted that your original premise about being an attack on the church was completely wrong.

Other churches exist you know.. why can't they use the word marriage when its only to do with them and is civil only. You said it was an ATTACK on the church, when clearly it isn't.

(March 19, 2012 at 5:04 pm)tobie Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 4:55 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: 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.

I still don't get what the problem would be with the government forcing the church to say homosexuality is ok. I don't feel they should be allowed to discriminate against people anymore than anyone else, yet people get offended when told so.

So you believe that the Church should be forced in law to comply with modern secular thought on issues?

(March 19, 2012 at 5:06 pm)StatCrux Wrote: EXACTLY the problem is the term marriage, the proposals are to allow civil "marriages" for same sex couples, not civil "partnerships" how many times do I have to state this? If the proposals were to allow civil partnerships to be performed by religious institutions, fine. Its the use of the term marriage that is the problem

Nobody is forcing your church, or any church to perform such ceremonies. Only those churches who wish to perform them.

Where the FUCK do you get off trying to dictate to the rest of the religious (and non-religious) what the meaning of marriage is?

(March 19, 2012 at 5:10 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(March 19, 2012 at 5:02 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Not at all, the proposal is for marriage not civil partnership there is a distinction, that is the issue

A CIVIL marriage, which means it can be conducted in a religious setting if the religion allows for it.
It specifically maintains a RELIGIOUS marriage is not allowed. Which is what you wanted.

The ONLY difference in the term is it being conducted in a religious setting WHEN the religion is happy for it to do so.
The government has repeatedly and explicitly said it would never impose a religious marriage on a religious institution to respect the ideals of a particular religion.

You can't even be bothered to understand the proposals properly, and all I can see is that I was right at the start of the thread.

Read up on the facts yourself, instead of overreacting based on how the proposals have been misrepresented to you.

You simply can't get over the word Marriage, even in religions that ACCEPT same-sex couples. The government bent over backwards to make you happy by making a clear distinction that it is CIVIL only.

You just want your religion to be the only one that has a say in it, and fuck the other religions.

What happened to respecting religious institutions, you clearly only mean resepct YOUR religious institution and that should trump any other religion who shouldn't be respected.

I'm done now, I don't think anything more can be said. I hope you realise that you are causing more harm to your cause through your overreaction, than if you simply accepted that your original premise this was an attack on YOUR church was completely wrong.

Other churches exist you know.. why can't they use the word marriage when its only to do with them. You said it was an ATTACK on the church, when clearly it isn't.

I fully understand the proposals, it is you who are refusing to understand my objections. Were the proposals simply "civil partnerships" to be conducted by willing religious institutions there would not be an issue, it is the use of the term marriage (regardless of civil or religious) when applied to same sex partnerships, is it so difficult for you to understand this?