Same sex marriage

[ElDinero]

No you weren't. I asked you to provide definitions that showed that marriage was primarily concerned with procreation, in fact. The UK Law one didn't, and the Catholic Church one is biased for reasons already mentioned.

[Welsh cake]

The state church of the UK, the target of this thread, is the Church of England

The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England. There is no state church of the UK because the United Kingdom is formed by the union of said country with previously independent states, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Thanks to disestablishmentarianism movements in the 19th century, secularism in the UK is at best ambiguous.

Church of England are pro-samesex marriage.

When and where did you learn this?

[Cyberman]

Something to chew on:



(H-T George Takei. Yes, Sulu himself.)

[Tempus]

Something to chew on:

---

---

I imagine it will look quite silly later. Really that sign at the top left could have just as easily once read "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE".

[kılıç_mehmet]

Something to chew on:



(H-T George Takei. Yes, Sulu himself.)

Only if they really were a "race" themselves, they would have looked rather reasonable in my eyes.

[Cyberman]

Did you hear a whistling sound as the point went sailing right over your head?

[Ben Davis]

Only if they really were a "race" themselves, they would have looked rather reasonable in my eyes.

...and to spell out the point,for StarCrux & mehmet's benefit is that racism & sexism are not being battled by new legal definitions of race or gender but by ending the hypocrisy with which legislation is formulated. A stronger argument for the end of 'legal' marriage has never been made.

StarCrux, there's no slippery slope here, just equal rights to all consenting adults.

kılıç_mehmet, the battle against racism is an anaolgy. The point is the battle for equal civil rights.

[liam]

It seems to me that telling people what they can and cannot do with their sexual organs with another consenting person is entirely stupid, leave the homosexuals be, I intend to be married soon and I don't see it as a union before god so I don't think it can be fair to impose on others your own view of a certain ceremony. If i was told that, in being an atheist, I was not allowed a wedding I'd be fucked off, it's not in the rights of others to usurp that decision.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Only if they really were a "race" themselves, they would have looked rather reasonable in my eyes.

...and to spell out the point,for StarCrux & mehmet's benefit is that racism & sexism are not being battled by new legal definitions of race or gender but by ending the hypocrisy with which legislation is formulated. A stronger argument for the end of 'legal' marriage has never been made.

StarCrux, there's no slippery slope here, just equal rights to all consenting adults.

kılıç_mehmet, the battle against racism is an anaolgy. The point is the battle for equal civil rights.

Well, civil rights is another thing. I do not oppose the right of people of two different races being together. I just oppose the concept for my own people. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do the same.

It seems to me that telling people what they can and cannot do with their sexual organs with another consenting person is entirely stupid, leave the homosexuals be, I intend to be married soon and I don't see it as a union before god so I don't think it can be fair to impose on others your own view of a certain ceremony. If i was told that, in being an atheist, I was not allowed a wedding I'd be fucked off, it's not in the rights of others to usurp that decision.

As I said, marriage in my country is always a secular institution and is done by civil servants. Yet it's still marriage.

[Ben Davis]

Well, civil rights is another thing. I do not oppose the right of people of two different races being together. I just oppose the concept for my own people. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do the same.

That's just it, it's not 'another' thing, it's the same thing. The right of anyone to marry/not to marry and be treated equally under law is a civil rights issue just as the right to equal & undiscriminatory legal treatment irrespective of ethnicity is a civil rights issue; just as the right to equal consideration under law for all genders is a civil rights issue; just as the right to be treated equally irrespective of one's religion or lack thereof is a civil rights issue.

To oppose the concept is to oppose the civil rights movement and the basic premise that everyone should have equal rights. Is that really the position you hold?