First of all, it wouldn't be denied to me as such, as it isn't physically possible for me to have surgery to be a man. Technically I would have the right to, if I was born a man and something went wrong, I'd be allowed to become a man. From what I know about the vows made at a wedding, things like 'will you love/stay with/protect/care for/...' are said, which is what binds a couple before god in marriage. Lots of people that take the vows, in a religious setting, know for a fact they are going to break them (by cheating/separating/beating their wife/...) but you think they can only do this if it's a man/woman combo. The only reason why I can think you're so against it is because you have a problem with gays. They are legally acknoledged nowadays to have the same rights as everyone else, they can live together, adopt kids, be open about their sexuality in forms/documents/the army/general jobs/... but they are not allowed to call themselves 'married' because they are gay. They can have civil unions, but it's not the same, because that's the limit, they can never be married because of their sexual orientation. It's discrimination, but your pathetic bigotry is too ingrained for you to begin to notice it, and you dare question my intelligence
So Rebel and Fan, do you agree with there being a referendum on this or not? That seems to be the most efficient way of dealing with the reason this thread exists.
How can marriage be a sacrament, if you can get married in a completely non-religious way? People may believe that it's a sacred act within their faith, but they don't call for the non-religious or even those of other religions or sects to be banned from marriage, so why is gay marriage any different? If there's no difference between religious marriage, non-religious marriage and gay civil partnerships, then why object to the word applying across the board?
So you don't qualify for gender realignment surgery on the basis that it would serve no function to you. The same is true for the sacrament of marriage for a homosexual couple. They cannot functionally fulfill the requirements of marriage (as a sacrament). So you can see why I "dared" to question your intelligence when you quite clearly do not know what the **** you are talking about. I would have thought that for someone who so regularly insists on telling people how much time they have wasted reading threads that you don't care about that you may have noticed that I am hardly retiring when it comes to telling people what I do and do not like. So when i tell your wild assertions about what I think are wide of the mark you should believe me. What i have no time for is intolerant arseholes like you who shoot their mouths off without knowing what the **** you are talking about.
I don't know what the question would be. Keith O'Brien has said that there is sufficient interest in the subject to warrant one. I am not convinced.
The law will make it possible for people to marry in a church. They will state that churches do not have to comply but the Catholic Church and The Kirk (CoS) believe that it will leave them open to being taken to court under equal rights legislation. That's my reading of it. I don't really give a **** as I'm not religious but Toby is embarrassing himself here as he doesn't know what the subject is about and being a massive racist himself he is displaying his hypocritical side again.
So you avoided the rest of my points and concentrated on the whole 'gender reassignment' ****ty argument that you put forward? Let's forget that marriage isn't only a christian thing for one second. What parts of the 'sacrament' of marriage that's said during the vows can the gays not fulfil? And every person that makes vows to the church follows them? (example: hundreds of ***** priests) Your hatred of gays is down to your flawed belief in a god, stick to arguing with BH on the weekends
That is why the parameters of the debate need to be defined. If we are talking about the sacrament of marriage as conducted within a religious setting or the civil union of a couple as a marriage.
I think that the call is just for the act of the union itself to be called marriage, across the board. As it stands, straight people can get married and gay people can have a civil partnership, but you can't choose which you'd like or do both. Applying the same title to everyone just doesn't seem controversial, to me. The problem seems to be people fearing some hidden agenda and certain religious institutions actually having one, but pretending that they don't.
You are an utter imbecile. Your argument was that "some people tell lies and break promises". I didn't ignore this argument. I thought I'd let it die as I thought it so ****ing stupid as not to warrant a response. Yes people break their wedding vows. However they have the capacity to keep them. The qualities of the sacrament are defined under scripture and they refer to a husband and wife. It has nothing at all to do with discrimination and everything to do with exactly what marriage is(as a sacrament). I don't mind your baseless accusations. They are easily disproved. I do mind your utter spastic ****e talk and you not having the remotest clue what the **** you are talking about.
I quite agree. I said as much earlier in this thread. That doesn't compromise the sacrament of marriage in any way and (in my opinion) it would reflect a lack of confidence in the value of the sacrament to approach it in any other way.
Anyone recall when dear Edwina Currie attempted to lower the age of consent for homos to 16 (1994)? I recall seeing Ian Paisley saying something along the lines "I can not believe that this house is contemplating allowing the sodomisation of young boys". Maybe him and Keith O'Brien should join forces.
The simple solution there (and a possible business opportunity) is for ex-churches to be used for non-religious marriage ceremonies, for those that want them. There's a pub in Muswell Hill that's now an O'Neills: please log in to view this image I'm sure there are plenty of other similar building that aren't being put to religious use any more.
To be perfectly honest I dont actually think its that big an issue to warrant the time/expense etc Also I firmly believe that people when asked directly usually respond with the 'expected' answer. However I think if it was a vote then the majority would still say no to gay marriage, simply because of the gay bit and nothing to do with anything else The main thing here is that the church will lose all credibility if they allow church ceremonies so really cannot, politicians are not really that bothered and should be focussing on what the IMF etc are saying Added to all thta is that the debate has gone from allowing it to how can the church not be legally forced, ALL politicians are looking at this specific bit and it crops up in most debates from QT to lords etc.
I know it well. There are churches that are open to celebrating gay Unions but the theology is slightly different. Those slight theological differences present a problem to those who might seek a gay union in that setting.
I've been in that place after much protest. The whole Irish theme pub thing is a nonsense, we English invented pubs.
Muswell Hill has had pubs since at least 1552 An odd Irish theme pub given that it wasn't a Catholic Church. Not something immediately associated with Irishness. Still, stick a couple of Aussies behind the bar and a few bicycles to the ceiling and away you go.
People are entitled to interpret their own faith in whatever manner they wish, as long as nobody gets hurt and no laws are broken, as far as I'm concerned. I think a legal challenge to that would be pretty hard to justify.
