Religion is brought into it because of what people understand a marriage to be. To many, it is the receipt of a sacrament. Which is why I asked the question. Obama has shifted his position from supporting civil partnerships to supporting gay marriage. I don't know what the difference is. I don't know what different rights and responsibilities are conferred on a couple as a result.
You're the one who made the claim. The burden of proof lies with you. In the same post you claimed that the agenda was being pushed by: I would suggest that gay groups and organisations are more representative of the gay community than ONE politician. But please do continue to argue the contrary even though you're just contradicting yourself with every post.
I think you are confusing 2 issues here. gay marriage and equality Most gay people want equality in terms of rights and civil partnership caters for this The likes of thatchell are not so much pushing for equality as they are for chipping away or challenging the church. Once the word marriage enters the vocabulary the only difference will be that churches will be forced under threat of discrimination to carry out the ceremony Interestingly civil partnerships were made legal in 2004 and since then there have been less than 20 000 'ceremonies amongst gay people. hardly a rush hardly a rush
I'm not confusing any issues. I've quoted you verbatim on what you said and where you've contradicted yourself. If you had any respect for yourself you would stop arguing and admit you got it wrong. But you cannot do that so you try and change tack. Even in your last statement you make the claim "Most gay people want...". You just make stuff up with no evidence to back your claims. I'm out.
Every ounce of my own intellect is telling me you are wrong, that is Obama, one of the most outspoken Liberal Presidents of all time, is personally against gay marriage. But that's not even what we were arguing about, we were arguing that it's no one's business but their own - and everyone should leave each other to **** alone.
seee the whole 'GAY FOR PAY' concept being reported in the USA for Obamas 'change of heart' including the $40k a person dinner parties with hollywood celebs. As for the rights and responsibilities bit see my earlier cut and paste from the guardian
you are clearly confused all you need to do is see why I mentioned thatchell and co in the first place I think the less than 20k in 8 years speaks for itself
you are clearly confused all you need to do is see why I mentioned thatchell and co in the first place I think the less than 20k in 8 years speaks for itself
thats the point. its a minority of people with the loudest voices who are making it the business of the church etc. no one has issues with civil partnerships. Interestingly in the USA in polls upto 75% of people are FOR gay marriage, yet when it went to vote in 32 states most voted NO People just seem to say yes to not be labelled homophobic
If it is just an issue of semantics then yes. Certainly. Although if that is the case, I don't know what he has shifted his position for. I am not saying that to be argumentative, I am just curious*. Maybe there is something in what fan says "Once the word marriage enters the vocabulary the only difference will be that churches will be forced under threat of discrimination to carry out the ceremony". I understand that argument, I just don't think it poses that much of a threat. *Yeah yeah, I know.
The right wing Christian lobby is far more powerful that the community. If anything, such a stance could cost him votes. imo
You can sometimes be very obscure in the points you are making (on other subjects as well, not just this one), as if not to give anyone the chance to corner you because you can claim your point was intended in another way. One of the ways I took your point was that gay people shouldn't bother kicking up a fuss because there is no difference in Civil Partnership and Marriage - and my point was that if there's no difference then non gay people shouldn't kick up a fuss either. Another way I could have interpreted your point was that the word 'Marriage' should in some way be reserved for a religious ceremony between two people - and my point was that churches don't get to own the word, we've been eloping in various formats for thousands of years before any modern church was established.
I'll try and be less ambiguous in future. In this instance it was my intention for my words to be taken at face value. I genuinely do not know the difference between the two and as such I don't know what distinction Obama is drawing.
