You implied that my wedding was a civil partnership - you've spent the whole thread arguing that a civil partnership does not need to be called marriage because it means the same thing in legal terms. You obviously see some difference in the terminology though or else there is no argument here. So just to get straight to the point, do you agree that the words marriage or married can be used by any couple who may or may not be homosexual as long as their ceremony is a civil one? Please note that I do not need to know any part of any churches stance on the above question - a churches view on the above is irrelevant as it doesn't involve them.
can't believe I agree with fan & rebelboy on this one.No one gay or church should be forced to do an act they disagree with.If gays want a religious marriage maybe they need a religion of their own.
there was a good debate on this today on some radio while I was at the barbers. I didnt catch it all but apparently when civil partnerships were made legal it was made clear that this would be the end to the marriage issue due to anything else just being to create mischief with the church Didnt catch it all, anyone hear it It was on the barbers Tele so could have been a show rather than radio, where I sit I cant see the screen
If you co-habitat with each other for more than six months, in the eyes of the governement you are seen as to be good as married.
Habitat is a noun meaning an area where you live. Habit (and also co-habit/inhabit) is a verb meaning to live. Unless you're on about that brown cloak wot monks wear, in which case it's a noun. Co-habitat isn't real, pendejo. Happy to help.
No, you're talking out of your ****ing arse as usual. How many of those people that are 'lucky' (from your point of view) to receive this 'sacred sacrament' actually believe it? The people that get marriages often couldn't give a flying **** about jesus or the rest of the fictional ****e that comes with it, they just like the idea of getting married in a church in a conventional way, probably because their parents did. It doesn't mean that they believe in it. Whereas from your point of view, someone that doesn't care about the rules and principles of the church (ie: look at all the divorces/broken marriages/..) should be allowed to marry because he's shagging a woman rather than a man? Your bigotry is pathetically obvious
Sorry, you said: Marriage is a sacrament. to receive that sacrament you need to qualify for it. You need to understand what it is about. If you have no intention of honouring the meaning and purpose of that sacrament then you do not qualify to receive it. Loads of people get married in churches knowing full well they won't spend the rest of their lives together, be faithful to each other,... but you're happy for them to do it because they're not gays. In other words you think it's fine that a heterosexual couple get married if they know deep down that they won't spend their life together, but if gays that plan to spend their life together want to get married they can't? It's pure discrimination. Like the bus analogy I made yesterday, you think it's fine for people to live discriminated against, as long as the option they have is nearly the same as the one everyone else has. You thick ****
