RootsBooster Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Where is the understanding between people of differing opinions in this thread ? There is none as far as i can see from the gay marriage supporters, it's utterly futile discussing it is the conclusion i've drawn. I'm a supporter of same sex marriage and I also believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 This is stupid, i offered a differing opinion and now despite facts to the contrary i'm a gay hater, WTF. ??? B o l l o x to this, harestone is done with SF. No one is arguing your entitlement to your opinion..you're being asked on what basis you arrive at that opinion. Because you're unable to answer then don't find it strange that your opinion isn't taken too seriously at the least or questioned at the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Marriage is a civil as well as a religious matter. The concessions have been made to the religious element. The civil side of it is getting there. As I understand it the only difference between marriage and civil partnerships is the religious bit and the word marriage. I'm absolutely fine with the state stepping back from the current position of telling gays they cannot marry. However its then down to gays and different religions to negotiate as to which faiths will and won't marry them, without government interference or interference from anyone not involved for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The attack on gay marriage continues ... Episode XII A New Strategy Did anybody else hear Sir Roger Gale, the Conservative MP and vocal critic of same-sex marriage, discuss his new strategy at 7:50 on the Today programme this morning? RG: The trouble is we are not making it equal enough. Me: Mmmmm RG: We should have a civil union that extends to all people. Me: Okay. RG: It's unfair that brothers and sisters, or anybody else, who choose to live together all their lives should be discriminated by the state in a manner that somebody who has been married for 10 mins is not. Our mistake has been to emphasise sex, it shouldn't be about that at all, it should be about equality, The state should be neutral, and civil unions should be available to everybody that wants them. Me: I think I can agree with that. RG: Marriage however is a religious institution ... Me: IT'S A TRAP! Roger Gale then proceeds to lay out his new plan. It's not just about restricting marriage to same-sex people you see, it's about restricting it for the non-religious too ... ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 09:08 ---------- The government should have nothing to do with marriage IMO. It should only recognise civil partnerships. Leave marriages to the churches. So like Roger Gale, rather than extending the status of marriage to same-sex couples you want to restrict it to the non-religious too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 So like Roger Gale, rather than extending the status of marriage to same-sex couples you want to restrict it to the non-religious too. Some vicars still do refuse to marry non-religious people, it was a common practice once upon a time, until marriages became financially lucrative. It was also common practice to refuse to marry heterosexuals on religious grounds too, for example if you were a divorcee, or did not attend church. Why should it be different for anyone else, especially so for those that do not share our faith and clearly have no respect for our culture, rights and rituals. I'd like to see a none muslim homosexual try and get a Nikah. I don't see why I should have to change my definition of a word to suit those trying to impose their ways upon me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I just don't get the idea of preventing the church from allowing them to marry even if we make it legal-what the hell is that about:huh: And why don't they have a referendum? I don't know why only mps get to decide. Its not that complicated a question. Because that's how democracy works, we elect MPs, they decide things. Most things aren't that complicated, but we don't expect to have referendums on them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Some vicars still do refuse to marry non-religious people, it was a common practice once upon a time, until marriages became financially lucrative. It was also common practice to refuse to marry heterosexuals on religious grounds too, for example if you were a divorcee, or did not attend church. Why should it be different for anyone else, especially so for those that do not share our faith and clearly have no respect for our culture, rights and rituals. When I got married (I was a believer back then) the vicar would refuse to marry divorced people and all those people you mention. Churches can refuse to marry who they want, and will continue to be able to refuse who they want, for whatever reason. But so what, if these insititutions want to cut off their noses to spite their faces then I am uninterested. These excluded people (with the exception of gays) have a legal entitlement to marriage and they can easily obtain it from a place that is not bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Some vicars still do refuse to marry non-religious people, it was a common practice once upon a time, until marriages became financially lucrative. It was also common practice to refuse to marry heterosexuals on religious grounds too, for example if you were a divorcee, or did not attend church. Why should it be different for anyone else, especially so for those that do not share our faith and clearly have no respect for our culture, rights and rituals. I'd like to see a none muslim homosexual try and get a Nikah. I don't see why I should have to change my definition of a word to suit those trying to impose their ways upon me. Common practice amongst Catholic churches maybe, but illegal for the church of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Personally I think Cameron has lost the plot. You can't lose the plot if you never had one in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 As I understand it the only difference between marriage and civil partnerships is the religious bit and the word marriage. I'm absolutely fine with the state stepping back from the current position of telling gays they cannot marry. However its then down to gays and different religions to negotiate as to which faiths will and won't marry them, without government interference or interference from anyone not involved for that matter. That's what the government has proposed. It won't force or stop any religion from marrying or not marrying a gay couple. With the exception of the CoE, which has a legal obligation to marry people within a diocese and asked for special protection so that they would not be forced to marry gay couples (as without special protection they would legally have no choice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.