Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[quisquose]

I think you misunderstand that; you can’t have hymns or readings from the Bible in a register office but you can if you have a religious ceremony in a church which applies equally to both gay and straight couples.

 

At a wedding I attended the bride was a Catholic, and the groom was CofE, and they decided that rather than choose one Church over another they would get married in a secular place. Of course some hymns and religious paraphernalia would have been nice for them, but it wasn't allowed. In fact the Registrar went over the place, and actually made them remove something because it was supposedly a religious item.

 

So because the Church kicked up such a fuss when marriage ceremonies were opened up to places other than the Church and the Registry Office, and forced the exclusion of any religious content at all, two religious people could not have the ceremony they would have liked.

 

To me, this just shows the Church to be little different to Coca-Cola with respect to protecting it's brand.

[esme]

Everyone is open to discrimination on job aps. too old, too young, too ethnic sounding, too white heterosexual british male, too posh, too common...the list is endless.

And some of those discriminations are illegal

There will always be some discrimination because some religious groups think homosexuality is a sin, and there is no way round that unless we ban religion.

So two wrongs make a right ?

 

Some religious groups are discriminatory, therefore we should all discriminate ?

 

Some religious groups don't eat certain types of meat, should we all stop eating those types of meat ?

[buck]

Then they don't have to conduct, approve or even attend such a marriage, it still doesn't mean it should be two names for the same thing.

 

And I must apologise, I misworded the question, I should have said

 

If, as you assert, they are the same thing, why do you need to call them by a different name ?

 

I've underlined the bit I changed

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2013 at 14:33 ----------

 

And we're back to Rosa Parks being told she can sit at the back of the bus again.

Come on Esme, don't troll. Not you of all people. This has nothing to do with a very brave American who I admire immensely.

[esme]

Come on Esme, don't troll. Not you of all people. This has nothing to do with a very brave American who I admire immensely.

It has everything to do with discrimination, if you have a two tier system then there is discrimination, having different seating on a bus based on skin colour is an example of a two tier system and having a different ceremony with a different name based on sexual orientation is another two tier system.

 

Both examples are discriminatory and both are wrong.

[Halibut]

It has everything to do with discrimination, if you have a two tier system then there is discrimination, having different seating on a bus based on skin colour is an example of a two tier system and having a different ceremony with a different name based on sexual orientation is another two tier system.

 

Both examples are discriminatory and both are wrong.

 

Spot on Esme.

 

'You're black, sit at the black' and 'You're gay, you can't get married' - both are clear examples of discrimination.

[buck]

It has everything to do with discrimination, if you have a two tier system then there is discrimination, having different seating on a bus based on skin colour is an example of a two tier system and having a different ceremony with a different name based on sexual orientation is another two tier system.

 

Both examples are discriminatory and both are wrong.

So in your view the relationship between marriage partners has nothing to do with childbirth. Birds marry for life needing no ceremony, and what happens when two male birds meet, they fight, just like two lions. I don't know about the lionesses, I doubt there are many lesbians. They're too busy chasing zebras for the old man's supper. Rosa Parks struck a blow for a suppressed people. I don't know that she would have been impressed with homosexual marriage. What she did was face possible death for what she did. Not the same thing at all. Being male or female is a two tier system itself.

[quisquose]

So in your view the relationship between marriage partners has nothing to do with childbirth. Birds marry for life needing no ceremony, and what happens when two male birds meet, they fight, just like two lions. I don't know about the lionesses, I doubt there are many lesbians. They're too busy chasing zebras for the old man's supper.

 

A friend of mine has just married a retired vicar, both in their 60s, in a service conducted by a rather high ranking member of the Anglican Church. Do you accept that they are married?

[harvey19]

I can think of reasons why somebody might reasonably want to know if somebody is a signalman or a gunner.

 

[in light of esme's excellent post just above, what possible reason can you think of why you might need to know if somebody is married or in a civil partnership?

 

Reasons being clarification in the army example, I presume you mean.

It is the same with marriage and a civil partnership.

[quisquose]

Reasons being clarification in the army example, I presume you mean.

It is the same with marriage and a civil partnership.

 

It might be necessary to know if John Smith is a member of the crew operating a crew-served weapon, or a member of the crew in charge of communications. Clarification here could be essential.

 

But why do you need to know if John Smith is married or in a civil partnership?

[esme]

So in your view the relationship between marriage partners has nothing to do with childbirth.

Yep people marry because they love each other

Birds marry for life needing no ceremony, and what happens when two male birds meet, they fight, just like two lions. I don't know about the lionesses, I doubt there are many lesbians. They're too busy chasing zebras for the old man's supper.

Fine do away with all forms of marriage if it's not necessary

{EDIT}I'm sure I don't need to point out the multitude of evidence of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom{/EDIT}

Rosa Parks struck a blow for a suppressed people. I don't know that she would have been impressed with homosexual marriage. What she did was face possible death for what she did. Not the same thing at all. Being male or female is a two tier system itself.

Let see homosexual people have been beaten, abused and even killed for their sexual orientation.

 

That isn't being oppressed ?

 

I'm so glad you don't try to put words in Rosa Parks mouth either, as you say you don't know if she would have been impressed or not.

 

You said it yourself

...Let the homosexuals have a ceremony that gives them all the rights of marriage but don't call it that, cos it isn't...

i.e. "Let those people have their ceremony which is not the same as everyone elses"

which is no different to saying "Let those people sit in their seats which are not the same as everyone elses" or "Let those people use their water fountains which are not the same as everyone elses"

 

Differentiating between people based on criteria that cannot be controlled such as skin colour, sexual orientation, race, gender, ability and even religion, as most children are brought up in a religion by their parents and rarely change, is discrimination.

 

Discrimination on any of these grounds is wrong and needs to be addressed.

 

Discrimination on any of these grounds in this country is illegal.