Gay marriage

[là bạn điên]

What is hilarious is that (currently a discussion with a religious friend) their bigest objection is that the "churches" will be FORCED to marry gay couples?

Sorry but WTF? hock:

Yes, that argument was going around here, too. Probably still is. lol
Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple. Couples where one or both people have been married before get turned down by Churches all the time. They just go and find another Church. The same will happen with this. There are Churches that are planning to offer weddings to same-sex couples, and they were unhappy when Churches were nearly excluded from being permitted to perform the marriages after the Church Of England threw a tantrum about the "Definition Of Marriage" being changed (You know, like the way the Church Of England was founded so that Henry VIII could redefine marriage to enable him to divorce Catherine of Aragon without the Pope's permission and marry Anne Boleyn.)

The Church of England was NOT founded by Henry VIII. How many fucking time s a year I have to address this

[Esquilax]

The Church of England was NOT founded by Henry VIII. How many fucking time s a year I have to address this

Given that you've only been here a day, how should we know?

Also, "nuh uh," isn't really an answer, no matter how exasperated you make it seem.

[max-greece]

That is the point.

"Legally married" ..... "Civil union" just doesn't cut it. Unless of course you want to claim that ALL marriages are now called "Civil Unions" ...... sounds like some one has backed themselves into a corner. Legally.

I am confused here. I am married. I have a marriage certificate. There isn't another level of marriage whether religious or not. Its not a civil partnership - whatever that means.

As it happens I am doubly recognised as married. Before we moved to Greece my wife went to the Greek Consulate in London and got the official Greek papers recognising our marriage.

These were sent to Athens and registered there. When my daughter was born we obtained a copy of that document in order to complete the birth certificate.

It says the same thing - Married.

[Chas]

Yes, that argument was going around here, too. Probably still is. lol
Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple. Couples where one or both people have been married before get turned down by Churches all the time. They just go and find another Church. The same will happen with this. There are Churches that are planning to offer weddings to same-sex couples, and they were unhappy when Churches were nearly excluded from being permitted to perform the marriages after the Church Of England threw a tantrum about the "Definition Of Marriage" being changed (You know, like the way the Church Of England was founded so that Henry VIII could redefine marriage to enable him to divorce Catherine of Aragon without the Pope's permission and marry Anne Boleyn.)

The Church of England was NOT founded by Henry VIII. How many fucking time s a year I have to address this

No, but Henry VIII separated it from the Roman Catholic Church. So, in the sense of an independent Church of England, he did create that.

[NoraBrimstone]

Yes, that argument was going around here, too. Probably still is. lol
Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple. Couples where one or both people have been married before get turned down by Churches all the time. They just go and find another Church. The same will happen with this. There are Churches that are planning to offer weddings to same-sex couples, and they were unhappy when Churches were nearly excluded from being permitted to perform the marriages after the Church Of England threw a tantrum about the "Definition Of Marriage" being changed (You know, like the way the Church Of England was founded so that Henry VIII could redefine marriage to enable him to divorce Catherine of Aragon without the Pope's permission and marry Anne Boleyn.)

The Church of England was NOT founded by Henry VIII. How many fucking time s a year I have to address this

I dunno. One?

Before 1534, the Church Of England was Catholic. I didn't think I needed to clarify that I meant it was then founded as an independent church and faith in its own right. It's hardly relevant to the topic.

[Violet]

You do understand, that marriage is, infact, a sociopolitical invention (and independent religion), yes? Oh good. I'm glad that we agree.

That commonfolk are being wed, on a religiohistorical basis, is hilarious

Do I understand that marriage is independent religion......

Yes, you do.

I assume you mean that marriage is/can be exist independently from religion and is a socio-political invention, I think you are contradicting yourself.

Both are socio-political inventions. Neither owe to the other as for why they are created.

I think you may not understand. No worries: that's why I am here

It is instinctual for some animals to form a union and choose one mate for life devoid of any higher level communication capability. Swans, turtle doves, wolves ect.

Did I say it was a complex socio-political system? Every one of those creatures communicates. It just so happens that, for their species, their offspring tends to survive more, and their offspring are reasonably likely to emulate the methods of their parents. Finally, when you have two people in the room: you have society, and with some rudimentary understanding of cause and effect: you have politics.

Mind, wolves have a different mating structure entirely (from the birds). Unless of course you're talking about temporary, politically-based unions between alphas (wolves)... in which case you're not a retard, and we can actually have a meaningful conversation

I do not deny that political governance (or even primitive social hierarchy) and culture recognises and influences the union and that the instinctive process has been altered by the socio-political context and called marriage.

Strongly. Bonobos, for instance, raise their children largely with 'community'. The goals of 'marriage' are survival and success, and these do not too challenging to communicate. It can be between two, 3, 4, or seventytrillion.

The main socio-political influence was religion, so marriage couldn't be a socio-political-religious invention and exist independently from religion.

Government, actually. Religion is smoke, where power is fire. Marriage is a socio-political (but not religious) invention, that has been *used* by religion (another socio-political device) to serve the purposes of various religions.

Often by governments, 'oddly' The things we do in the name of efficiency ^_^

I am honestly still on the fence, not that it's like I have a say in the matter anyway.

There's a matter to have a say? Wasn't interested. Hope it's interesting

[EgoRaptor]

I'm generally against marriage because it is a ridiculous concept, rooted in the ownership of women (as seen in the traditional wedding ceremony, when the father "gives away" his prize cow daughter to the groom.) That said, marriage is a right, and no couple should be denied any rights due to their sexuality or gender.
I've supported the Coalition For Equal Marriage throughout their successful campaign (29th of March, yay!) and will continue to support marriage equality (trans people still won't be able to marry yet) until any couple can get married if they so wish, or until we do away with marriage altogether.

While marriage is rooted in the ownership of women, it has moved past that. The problem is not so much marriage itself as it is traditional marriage (ya know, the kind conservative all have giant hard-ons for).

[Aractus]

The Church of England was NOT founded by Henry VIII. How many fucking time s a year I have to address this

For a start NB didn't make that claim, what he said was that it was founded "for" him. His claim is actually more untrue than what you claim.

What he did, that aided the reformation movement, was diminish powers that the RCC had.

[Blake the Heretic]

I'm not personally the biggest fan of marriage. I don't think you need a certificate to prove that you love someone. If you really care, you'd be willing to to spend forever with them with or without a document to support that idea. Not that anyone takes marriage seriously anymore these days.

Being Bisexual I'm very pro marriage equality. I think anyone who wants to get married, shouldn't be turned away based on sexual orientation. It's a shame that this is still an issue in America today, but hopefully we all get over our crap at some point. Besides, if I ever did decide to get married I'd like to have that as an option. Would certainly be nice

[Lek]

I'm not as concerned about marriage itself, but I don't want gay people to have to miss out on all the legal rights that go along with marriage. Personally, I'd rather the state consider all marriages civil unions as an effort to seperate church and state; then we just legalize same sex civil unions so the fundies don't have to worry about gays getting married (even though I'm sure gay friendly churches will still hold weddings for them).

Can't believe it. Although I am morally opposed to gay marriage because of my faith, I'm with you on this one. So many people, including me, are upset by the redefining of an institution that we consider sacred. If the states just gave everybody equal rights under a civil union, I think it would quell much of the opposition. You're right that the state has no business saying who is married or not. A couple could apply for a civil union and they would receive all the legal benefits. Marriages would be performed by churches or whatever and would be a private matter.