Posts: 1123
Threads: 18
Joined: February 15, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm
(March 19, 2012 at 5:17 pm)StatCrux Wrote: 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?
I understand your objections. Why do you think we're calling you out on banning other CHURCHES from marrying people. Yours is not the only church.
You simply demand YOUR church has a monopoly on what marriage means.
You're not reading a word anybody says are you.
Damn, I said I was done.. Okay I really mean it this time. Cthulu summed up my post far better.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2012 at 5:28 pm by StatCrux.)
(March 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (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?
maybe you're right, lets just give up and start having cermonies for women to marry their cats and be done with the whole issue...I'm sure other churches would be happy to perform the "marriage" ceremony for cat lovers...
Posts: 1298
Threads: 42
Joined: January 2, 2012
Reputation:
32
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm
(March 19, 2012 at 5:25 pm)StatCrux Wrote: (March 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (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?
maybe you're right, lets just give up and start having cermonies for women to marry their cats and be done with the whole issue...I'm sure other churches would be happy to perform the "marriage" ceremony for cat lovers...
So a marriage between two people of the same sex is a ridiculous as a marriage between two different species? I thought we'd moved on from the dark ages.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm
(March 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm)tobie Wrote: (March 19, 2012 at 5:25 pm)StatCrux Wrote: (March 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (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?
maybe you're right, lets just give up and start having cermonies for women to marry their cats and be done with the whole issue...I'm sure other churches would be happy to perform the "marriage" ceremony for cat lovers...
So a marriage between two people of the same sex is a ridiculous as a marriage between two different species? I thought we'd moved on from the dark ages.
Hey "who the FUCK am I" to say that marriage to cats is wrong? I'm sure cat lovers would use similar arguments to justify their views on marriage
Posts: 30972
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm by Jackalope.)
(March 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm)tobie Wrote: So a marriage between two people of the same sex is a ridiculous as a marriage between two different species? I thought we'd moved on from the dark ages.
Some of us have.
This one hasn't:
(March 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Hey "who the FUCK am I" to say that marriage to cats is wrong? I'm sure cat lovers would use similar arguments to justify their views on marriage
You can say perfectly well that same sex marriage is wrong TO YOU, and for your church.
You don't get to make that decision for other people, or other faiths.
If your Orthodox church wants has as part of it's dogma that marriage is for opposite-sex-only unions, nothing prevents it from doing so, and nothing forces it to perform religious marriages it doesn't wish to. Nor does it prevent you and your church from not recognizing the religious marriages of other churches. That's OK, the government will.
However, you would have your definitions pushed on Unitarians, preventing them from conducting same-sex Unitarian marriage ceremonies in accordance with thier doctrines.
You don't get to do that.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2012 at 6:03 pm by StatCrux.)
(March 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (March 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm)tobie Wrote: So a marriage between two people of the same sex is a ridiculous as a marriage between two different species? I thought we'd moved on from the dark ages.
Some of us have.
This one hasn't:
(March 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Hey "who the FUCK am I" to say that marriage to cats is wrong? I'm sure cat lovers would use similar arguments to justify their views on marriage
You can say perfectly well that same sex marriage is wrong TO YOU, and for your church.
You don't get to make that decision for other people, or other faiths.
If your Orthodox church wants has as part of it's dogma that marriage is for opposite-sex-only unions, nothing prevents it from doing so, and nothing forces it to perform religious marriages it doesn't wish to. Nor does it prevent you and your church from not recognizing the religious marriages of other churches. That's OK, the government will.
However, you would have your definitions pushed on Unitarians, preventing them from conducting same-sex Unitarian marriage ceremonies in accordance with thier doctrines.
You don't get to do that.
I understand your viewpoint, my argument is that marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman, if people want to have a similar formal and public recognition of commitment and partnership in same sex relationships why are they so determined to call it marriage? why not have a term that describes this other form of alternative unions? why the need to redefine marriage? I'm not saying that same sex unions are "wrong" or inferior I'm simply saying that using the term marriage is wrong
Posts: 2966
Threads: 124
Joined: May 12, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm
'I'm sure cat lovers would use similar arguments to justify their views on marriage'
I think cat 'lovers' has a different meaning than the one you're implying, but then you have a relationship with the invisible man, you fucking homo.
/sarcasm
Posts: 1123
Threads: 18
Joined: February 15, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 6:10 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
I'm still shocked at the arrogance of stating your religion gets to define what marriage is in the UK.
Even thou I am distinctly secular, the state religion is Anglican.
Once again for clarity.
The STATE religion is ANGLICAN. Not Orthodox.
If any religion gets to redefine what marriage is (which is still stupid), its the state religion of the country where the law is being defined.
You don't have to respect the Church of England, but how can you not see how arrogant it is of you to demand that your Orthodox religion deserves to overrule the state religion.
Even if it wasn't the state religion, your position is still untenable purely on the basis of the arguments stated.
The fact you resorted to comparing to gay marriage to marrying a woman and an animal tells us everything about your opinions. Any respect you were due for arguing your point politely was lost at that instant.
You are wrong on this, for so many many reasons. Adapt or die goes for religions as well, and you contribute to the death of yours with every word.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
Posts: 30972
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm
(March 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I understand your viewpoint, my argument is that marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman
As has been demonstrated to you already in this thread, it has not always been the case, nor is it universal. Your own church had to formally define it some 600 odd years ago. Are you suggesting that prior to that, it was universally true that marriage was always a union between a man and a woman, regardless of faith, regardless of culture?
You can continue to call marriage whatever you want. The majority of us have moved past that.
Posts: 2966
Threads: 124
Joined: May 12, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 6:17 pm
I'm with Tiberius and RevJ on this one, when they say the state should not have a say in marriage. If an institution does not want to marry a homosexual or even a heterosexual couple, fine, whatever, we now know they are douchebags. But few would say no, they want your fucking $$£$£$£ and bumbandits make up about 6% of population here in UK (wiki), thats a big $£ potential gain. Let's face it, Churches in the UK need money, they're closing quicker than my bitch's legs.
|
