Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:38 pm  

TheSurgeon wrote:

because (i suspect ) like me, answer 2 best fits the reply i would like to give to the question asked.

No one likes a smartarse

Why does he (and for that matter you) hold that view?

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:44 pm  

To quote John Cleese in the life of Brian with regard to gay church weddings.
'What's the point'
What I mean is that in a church wedding it is said that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships are just as legal.
Is this not a case of fighting for something just for the hell of it?

Yes I agree that they are blinkered into what parts they want to read and take notice of but in the case of a church wedding the man/woman part is pretty high up on the list so why would someone in a same sex relationship want to be involved in a church wedding when they are at odds of a key part of that ceremony and it is at odds to their life/relationship.


BTW I am no bigot before anyone starts

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:44 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

To quote John Cleese in the life of Brian with regard to gay church weddings.
'What's the point'
What I mean is that in a church wedding it is said that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships are just as legal.
Is this not a case of fighting for something just for the hell of it?...

If there is no difference, then what is the point of anyone getting married at all?

And in terms of the religious element alone, I might not personally think that I'd want any religious component to any marriage, but there are plenty of LGBT people who are religious and would want to have a religious ceremony.






Incidentally, there are differences between the rights etc that marriage affords over civil partnership.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:46 pm  

Mintball wrote:

In which case, what is the point of anyone getting married at all?

Dogma.

But that still doesn't answer my point, Some folks seem not to be happy unless they have something to fight against.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:49 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

To quote John Cleese in the life of Brian with regard to gay church weddings.
'What's the point'
What I mean is that in a church wedding it is said that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships are just as legal.
Is this not a case of fighting for something just for the hell of it?

Yes I agree that they are blinkered into what parts they want to read and take notice of but in the case of a church wedding the man/woman part is pretty high up on the list so why would someone in a same sex relationship want to be involved in a church wedding when they are at odds of a key part of that ceremony and it is at odds to their life/relationship.


BTW I am no bigot before anyone starts

A gay couple with strong religious views can't be married in the church of their choice.

Why they would want to be part of an organisation that so clearly doesn't want them there in the first place I don't know, but there are plenty of gay people with strong religious views and they are clearly disenfranchised and in some quarters outwardly despised for their dirty little habits.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:51 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And in terms of the religious element alone, I might not personally think that I'd want any religious component to any marriage, but there are plenty of LGBT people who are religious and would want to have a religious ceremony.

Which again makes me ask 'whats the point'.

Mintball wrote:

Incidentally, there are differences between the rights etc that marriage affords over civil partnership.

Well I was not totally aware of that and TBH that would probably be a better place to vent the anger.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:55 pm  

Mintball wrote:

LGBT people

Why do I always visualise railways? And a driver in a black latex outfit?

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:59 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

A gay couple with strong religious views can't be married in the church of their choice.

Why they would want to be part of an organisation that so clearly doesn't want them there in the first place I don't know, but there are plenty of gay people with strong religious views and they are clearly disenfranchised and in some quarters outwardly despised for their dirty little habits.

I'll again go back to that we have a situation where a ceremony has been for hetrosexuals only since the time of Constatine which clearly discounts homosexuals.
Why would homosexuals want anything to do with it.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:02 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Which again makes me ask 'whats the point'...

I think you'd have to ask a person who wanted such a religious ceremony that question.

But to put it a different way, if someone wants a religious ceremony (and plenty do, even if they are not remotely religious), why should anyone be denied that?

If someone wants to be married, why not?

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Well I was not totally aware of that and TBH that would probably be a better place to vent the anger.

TBH, I had been hoping that this thread would be more general and not just be about the cardinal's comments or that particular subject, but about the wider culture of a 'tyranny of intolerance', so to speak.

Re: Spot the difference : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:02 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

To quote John Cleese in the life of Brian with regard to gay church weddings.
'What's the point'
What I mean is that in a church wedding it is said that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Civil partnerships are just as legal.
Is this not a case of fighting for something just for the hell of it?

It's incredibly divisive to refer to one group as being 'in a civil partnership' and another group as being 'married'. That gay couples cannot declare themselves to be 'married' is really the only reason needed to change the law. Just as it would be wrong to refer to white people as 'human' and black people as 'evolved apes' (both are accurate), it is wrong that gay couples have to refer to their marriage as something that implies that it doesn't quite have the same status.