Same sex marriage

[StatCrux]

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?