Same sex marriage

[thesummerqueen]

Yes it would - because they'd have the same rights as straight people who didn't get married in a church. The church would be nothing but a spiritual binding - it would have no legal standing in court and you'd still have to apply with the state to merge your property and everything else.

---

Also, there is no goddamn gay agenda.

I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

No. You want the right to discriminate, then take it out of secular law. You don't like it, start paying bloody taxes to earn the right to vote it out. Otherwise, take your bigotry elsewhere.

---

Tib - civil unions as I see it would simply be a way of tacking people onto inheritance rights, and therefore you can add or subtract as many people as you wish.

[Creed of Heresy]

Damn Queen, you get feisty when you've got a headache.

[thesummerqueen]

You have no idea. Wait till I get really pissed off.

[StatCrux]

I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

We do not have it in the UK. Marriage is still defined in law as the union of one man and one woman. It is still discriminatory against gay people, polygamists, etc. This isn't about rocking the boat, it's about equality.

Summer's idea would work, but I still worry about having the definition of marriage controlled by the government. It doesn't solve the problem for polygamists, which I foresee as the next big push for equality. Far better to have the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and let individuals decide what it means. It would also save the country money, since we would have to get rid of all the bonuses we give people who get married (which is in itself discriminatory against people who have no interest in getting married).

That is the whole point, marriage IS the union of one man and one woman, anything else isn't marriage, this is why its an important issue, we are trying to REDEFINE marriage, same sex couples can have civil partnerships, but BY DEFINITION they cannot marry. This isn't simply semantics, its an attempt to take the concept of union of man and woman and diminish it by calling any union a marriage. To illustrate its like the government deciding to call anyone it deems a nice person to now be called a saint, so aany nice people can now be called a saint, it would diminish the concept of a saint in the same way calling any civil partnership a marriage diminishes the concept of marriage.

[thesummerqueen]

Are we looking at the same dictionary?

[Creed of Heresy]

I would agree as long as a Church marriage had equal status to a civil union. Which is basically what we already have in the UK. Gay couples can have civil partnerships which give them all the same protection in law as married couples. They just want to rock the boat a bit more

We do not have it in the UK. Marriage is still defined in law as the union of one man and one woman. It is still discriminatory against gay people, polygamists, etc. This isn't about rocking the boat, it's about equality.

Summer's idea would work, but I still worry about having the definition of marriage controlled by the government. It doesn't solve the problem for polygamists, which I foresee as the next big push for equality. Far better to have the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and let individuals decide what it means. It would also save the country money, since we would have to get rid of all the bonuses we give people who get married (which is in itself discriminatory against people who have no interest in getting married).

That is the whole point, marriage IS the union of one man and one woman, anything else isn't marriage, this is why its an important issue, we are trying to REDEFINE marriage, same sex couples can have civil partnerships, but BY DEFINITION they cannot marry. This isn't simply semantics, its an attempt to take the concept of union of man and woman and diminish it by calling any union a marriage. To illustrate its like the government deciding to call anyone it deems a nice person to now be called a saint, so aany nice people can now be called a saint, it would diminish the concept of a saint in the same way calling any civil partnership a marriage diminishes the concept of marriage.

Marriage by definition means "Coupling." Connecting two Lego blocks together is technically marriage, for example. And I wouldn't call Legos gender-based...

[Tiberius]

I suggest you read up on the history of marriage. It was the Christians who originally redefined marriage, back in Roman times.

"While it is a relatively new practice to frequently grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history."

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

No religion has the monopoly on marriage, and why should they? Not everyone believes in the same religion, and even if it were true that the original marriage was between a man and a woman, tradition is the worst form of argument for supporting something. I don't support gay marriage because it was "legal" in ancient times; I support it because it is fair and equal.

[Creed of Heresy]

Are we looking at the same dictionary?

He's looking at a different dictionary. It's called the "biblical dictionary." I trust you're using Oxford?

[Nine]

That is the whole point, marriage IS the union of one man and one woman, anything else isn't marriage, this is why its an important issue, we are trying to REDEFINE marriage, same sex couples can have civil partnerships, but BY DEFINITION they cannot marry. This isn't simply semantics, its an attempt to take the concept of union of man and woman and diminish it by calling any union a marriage. To illustrate its like the government deciding to call anyone it deems a nice person to now be called a saint, so aany nice people can now be called a saint, it would diminish the concept of a saint in the same way calling any civil partnership a marriage diminishes the concept of marriage.

Some gays believe in god too and have a different view of marriage. Who says your beliefs are more valid?

Diminishes the concept of marriage? Says you. They will disagree and so would I.

[Welsh cake]

@thesummerqueen, you said what I've been arguing for for years, only better. You're like the opposite of Margaret Thatcher or something. ^^