(May 14, 2012 at 10:45 am)StatCrux Wrote: Gay couples already have equal rights in law regarding same sex relationships in the UK, why do they feel the need for it to be called marriage? This isn't about equality it's about redefining the current definition of marriage.

For anyone who doesn't want to traipse through the whole thread, StatCrux would like you to believe this wasn't dismissed already.

We were discussing this back at page 9 and 10 onwards regarding definition, and there has been no satisfactory answer to the charge that Christians redefined marriage themselves, and therefore hypocritical to object to further redefinition to fit with the current zeitgeist.

Rome, China, Greece all had provisions for same sex marriage, so it is hardly a complete redefinition, rather a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

Another point you never addressed StatCrux, is that who has the right to define marriage anyway?

Is it the church?

The state church of the UK, the target of this thread, is the Church of England, and regardless of your views on that church, you have to admit, that IF the church should have a say in what marriage is.. then it is the STATE church of the country where the law is being proposed.

Church of England are pro-samesex marriage.

So aren't you trying to enforce your religious views, on a society that does not accept your Orthodoxy?

The issue at hand regardless, is that gay couples cannot get married in their own churches whom are happy to perform the ceremony.
So you also want your church to have a say in what OTHER churches do.
The proposals were quite explicit in stating that a church would not be forced to perform them.

SummerQueen also had the superb idea of removing the legal status of Marriage, and making all unions civil unions.
You can get married in a church if you like, but it conveys no legal rights unless a separate secular process is followed to create a contract between parties granting rights.

That way, everyone is equal, and your little dark age philosophy is not impinged upon.

What this REALLY comes down to, is that StatCrux believes the Orthodox church should have a greater power to influence policy, than any other religious institution.

(May 14, 2012 at 10:45 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 14, 2012 at 10:31 am)genkaus Wrote: If only reality could be determined by simple agreement.

Gay couples already have equal rights in law regarding same sex relationships in the UK, why do they feel the need for it to be called marriage? This isn't about equality it's about redefining the current definition of marriage.

Here are two ways in which they are not the same.

Quote:Any practical differences in the ceremonies?

Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Any other practical differences?

Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

My question to you though, is that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why do you insist on calling it a non-duck?

(May 14, 2012 at 11:10 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(May 14, 2012 at 10:45 am)StatCrux Wrote: Gay couples already have equal rights in law regarding same sex relationships in the UK, why do they feel the need for it to be called marriage? This isn't about equality it's about redefining the current definition of marriage.

For anyone who doesn't want to traipse through the whole thread, StatCrux would like you to believe this wasn't dismissed already.

We were discussing this back at page 9 and 10 onwards regarding definition, and there has been no satisfactory answer to the charge that Christians redefined marriage themselves, and therefore hypocritical to object to further redefinition to fit with the current zeitgeist.

Rome, China, Greece all had provisions for same sex marriage, so it is hardly a complete redefinition, rather a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

Another point you never addressed StatCrux, is that who has the right to define marriage anyway?

Is it the church?

The state church of the UK, the target of this thread, is the Church of England, and regardless of your views on that church, you have to admit, that IF the church should have a say in what marriage is.. then it is the STATE church of the country where the law is being proposed.

Church of England are pro-samesex marriage.

So aren't you trying to enforce your religious views, on a society that does not accept your Orthodoxy?

The issue at hand regardless, is that gay couples cannot get married in their own churches whom are happy to perform the ceremony.
So you also want your church to have a say in what OTHER churches do.
The proposals were quite explicit in stating that a church would not be forced to perform them.

SummerQueen also had the superb idea of removing the legal status of Marriage, and making all unions civil unions.
You can get married in a church if you like, but it conveys no legal rights unless a separate secular process is followed to create a contract between parties granting rights.

That way, everyone is equal, and your little dark age philosophy is not impinged upon.

What this REALLY comes down to, is that StatCrux believes the Orthodox church should have a greater power to influence policy, than any other religious institution.

In the words of Paul the Alien: 'Thats jenger'

Just like to point out about StatCrux's 'definitions' of marriage (apologies if somebody else has already knocked this into a cocked hat):

The first one was the UK Law definition. A law is not the same as a definition. The definition of marriage is a union. That is literally what the word means. What the UK takes it to mean in a legal sense is irrelevant, and open to change. Once it does change (and it will), you will presumably disagree with their definition and I would guess no longer use it in any future debates to make your point. You can't use it now, in its current form, and then ignore it once it changes. We can ignore it altogether, though, which is my suggestion.

The second was from the Catholic Church. I hope I don't need to elaborate on the statement that their definition is likely to be somewhat less than unbiased. What's the point in using them as a source in this discussion? It's like defining evolution by what a creationist website says it is.

---

(May 14, 2012 at 9:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Oh... I'm sorry, I was not aware that ONLY MALES were to discuss on this thread...night everyone!

How embarrassing for you, bitch. Make me a sandwich.

(May 14, 2012 at 11:10 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: SummerQueen also had the superb idea of removing the legal status of Marriage, and making all unions civil unions.
You can get married in a church if you like, but it conveys no legal rights unless a separate secular process is followed to create a contract between parties granting rights.

I've been banging on about this point for a long time, too. There's a growing sentiment in the UK that 'marriage' is nothing more than the legal ratification of 'commitment'. The implication being that your commitment to a partner is not good enough until ratified by a state or religious entity.

I would remove all legal rights, all legal definitions of marriage so that there's no difference in legal status between single people or those in committed partnerships. Let's face facts; the only reason marriage laws were created in the first place was to setlle disputes over ownership of women & dowries; fortunately such feudal & misogynistic thinking is mainly outdated and most of the legal precedent supporting such behaviour has been overturned.

The removal of such legal status would help end the discrimintation surrounding different types of marriage or no marriage at all: currently people who choose not to marry or who want to marry multiple partners (with full consent from all parties) are just as discriminated against by UK law as same-sex marriages.

I think this discussion has gone way beyond StatCrux's limited religious thinking and it's time to start thinking outside the envelope: why bother having marriage as a legal instituion in the first place?

BECAUSE IT'S SACRED AND PEOPLE NEED TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE BABIES or something, I stopped tuning in.

Oh, I forgot to add on my post about those definitions that the UK Law one doesn't mention anything about procreation at all, and you were supposed to be showing that the definition of marriage implied procreation.

(May 14, 2012 at 11:10 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: So aren't you trying to enforce your religious views, on a society that does not accept your Orthodoxy?

Its' not society that is demanding change it's a tiny minority group, the majority of society want marriage to remain between a man and a woman, that's why the UK government has backed down on the issue, becuase they realise it's NOT what the majority of society wants.

---

(May 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Just like to point out about StatCrux's 'definitions' of marriage (apologies if somebody else has already knocked this into a cocked hat):

The first one was the UK Law definition. A law is not the same as a definition. The definition of marriage is a union. That is literally what the word means. What the UK takes it to mean in a legal sense is irrelevant, and open to change. Once it does change (and it will), you will presumably disagree with their definition and I would guess no longer use it in any future debates to make your point. You can't use it now, in its current form, and then ignore it once it changes. We can ignore it altogether, though, which is my suggestion.

The second was from the Catholic Church. I hope I don't need to elaborate on the statement that their definition is likely to be somewhat less than unbiased. What's the point in using them as a source in this discussion? It's like defining evolution by what a creationist website says it is.

---

(May 14, 2012 at 9:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Oh... I'm sorry, I was not aware that ONLY MALES were to discuss on this thread...night everyone!

How embarrassing for you, bitch. Make me a sandwich.

Firstly, we are talking specifically about the legal definition of marriage, that's the whole issue! Nobody cares what the dictionary definition is or isn't. Secondly the definition given by the Catholic Church is a valid point, it's a matter of who you accept has authority on the issue. This is very much part of the issue. If same sex marriage is made legal, the next stage is to force the Church to perform such unions. This is the stand off the pro-gay movements wants, can a government force religious institutions to perform ceremonies that are fundamentallly against what they believe? It will create a stand off between Church and state, its devisive and confrontational behaviour by the pro-gay movement.

Seperation of Church and state bitch.

Perhaps if the Church were to refuse to "perform such unions", the people who want to marry would simply go somewhere else. It's marketplace common-sense; if you refuse to sell me a loaf of bread, I'll just give my money to someone else who will serve me. This stick-in-the-mud attitude would certainly not put a stop to same-sex marriage, which, in this scenario, is fully legal remember. It all depends on whether the Church wants to be regarded as the dinosaur institution it is. The only organisation forcing a divisive confrontation is the one refusing to be relevant to the people on whom its raison d'etre depends.