Legislation for gay marriage

TriggerHappy said:
But civil partnership isn't just a descriptive gender word like bride and groom is it? It's an entire legal institution that functions in complete isolation of marriage because of some archaic view that the loving union of two people, which society knows as marriage, can only exist between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Give it the same rights as marriage then! I said this at the beginning! It doesn't mean the phrase used to describe it has to change!
 
ACW said:
Give it the same rights as marriage then! I said this at the beginning! It doesn't mean the phrase used to describe it has to change!
Click to expand...

Why have two different things with the same rights, when we could just use one?
 
ACW said:
Give it the same rights as marriage then! I said this at the beginning! It doesn't mean the phrase used to describe it has to change!
Click to expand...

If it has all the same rights as marriage, and for all intents and purposes it works like marriage, then why not just call it marriage so as to remove the very thing that so many feel perpetuates an inequality?

I don't understand how you can believe in equality, yet not see the inequality that exists in the current system.
 
ACW said:
No. This is a point against those who are comparing the struggle of the gay people with the struggles faced by black people in early 20th century America.
Click to expand...

Late C20th, or rather mid at the very least.

That's what I meant by kaleidoscopic - your perception of time seems somewhat warped.

I'm really not sure why you referenced slavery, but I was talking about civil rights.
 
ACW said:
Give it the same rights as marriage then! I said this at the beginning! It doesn't mean the phrase used to describe it has to change!
Click to expand...

Or another simpler idea would be to just call it marriage and just have the one thing

Job done :thumbs:
 
ACW said:
In that case you'll have no problem telling me when the last time similar things happened to the gay community was. As my kaleidoscopic memory doesn't seem to think there have been any incidents on the same scale.
Click to expand...

The holocaust would be a good starting point for you. IIRC about 100'000 were arrested for being homosexual and around 15'000 were put in concentration camps.
 
ACW said:
It's the fuss being made over nothing that's the issue. Why is civil partnership really such an offensive term?
Click to expand...

It's already stated about four times but since you don't seem to get it. A) the rights and standing of a civil partnership aren't the same b) you say make them the same, flipping heck why not just call it the same then. ;)
 
Because, and in my view only because, this would present a problem for the church.
 
simon ess said:
Because, and in my view only because, this would present a problem for the church.
Click to expand...

But only for some churches. It's a shame nobody seems to care about the religious freedom of Unitarians, progressive Jews, Quakers etc,.
 
Yeah, point taken.

It's the voting system within the church of England that seems to be the problem.
 
ding76uk said:
The holocaust would be a good starting point for you. IIRC about 100'000 were arrested for being homosexual and around 15'000 were put in concentration camps.
Click to expand...

I was trying desperately to avoid Godwin you git!! :lol:
 
That's twice in 2 days I've read a reference to Godwin.

Could someone explain please?

Thanks
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I'd argue in this discussion it was legitimately raised when asked to give examples of the mass-suffering of homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
:thumbs:

Cheers.

So, presumably, it doesn't apply to perfectly appropriate reference to the nazis?


Sorry - off topic, but I hadn't heard of this before.
 
simon ess said:
Yeah, point taken.

It's the voting system within the church of England that seems to be the problem.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Simon, the CoE tacitly accepted homosexuality years ago (more-so with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism) but principally only within their own Clergy. In my own experience there have been several (relatively) openly gay bishops for at least 30 years.

The Catholic Church pretty much guaranteed either perversion (in it's true sense) or repression in it's fold as soon as it adopted the policy of celebacy.

As much as I believe in God, the Churches really are utter hypocrites when you balance their teachings against their practices.
 
I think that's pretty much how I understand it.

It's the laity that's the problem within the voting system.

I have to say, I don't believe in the Judaeo(sp), Christian God, although I do allow for the possibility of some form of ultimate entity, but I have met some thoroughly open minded and interesting clergymen.

I've also met a couple of nasty, evil *******s but people are people eh.
 
May I just say thanks to TP for letting this subject run. It is a very sensitive subject and I applaud all those who have contributed to make it a fascinating read.

Well done all.
 
DemiLion said:
The thing is, Simon, the CoE tacitly accepted homosexuality years ago (more-so with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism) but principally only within their own Clergy. In my own experience there have been several (relatively) openly gay bishops for at least 30 years.
Click to expand...

Now now. Let's not go bashing the bishops.
 
DemiLion said:
The thing is, Simon, the CoE tacitly accepted homosexuality years ago (more-so with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism) but principally only within their own Clergy. In my own experience there have been several (relatively) openly gay bishops for at least 30 years.

The Catholic Church pretty much guaranteed either perversion (in it's true sense) or repression in it's fold as soon as it adopted the policy of celebacy.

As much as I believe in God, the Churches really are utter hypocrites when you balance their teachings against their practices.
Click to expand...

Aah, I've just seen a completely different reading of this than I did at first.

I suspect you're right.
 
DemiLion said:
Late C20th, or rather mid at the very least.

That's what I meant by kaleidoscopic - your perception of time seems somewhat warped.

I'm really not sure why you referenced slavery, but I was talking about civil rights.
Click to expand...

Lily-white movement was pre to early 20th. To name but one.
 
ding76uk said:
The holocaust would be a good starting point for you. IIRC about 100'000 were arrested for being homosexual and around 15'000 were put in concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Whilst terrible, it wasn't purely an anti-gay campaign was it.

I guess every group and sect has been killed in their droves at one point in the past millennium.
 
Sorry Adam - I've lost track of the point you're making in relation to gay marriage.

Sorry, I'm not being awkward, I'm just not sure where you're going with this.
 
Headless Lois said:
Why have two different things with the same rights, when we could just use one?
Click to expand...

TriggerHappy said:
If it has all the same rights as marriage, and for all intents and purposes it works like marriage, then why not just call it marriage so as to remove the very thing that so many feel perpetuates an inequality?

I don't understand how you can believe in equality, yet not see the inequality that exists in the current system.
Click to expand...

joescrivens said:
Or another simpler idea would be to just call it marriage and just have the one thing

Job done :thumbs:
Click to expand...

You've all given compelling arguments to support gay marriage, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I've told you all my opinion and explained why I think that the two acts are too different to be in the same boat.

Nothing I can say will change your mind and I doubt anything you can say will change mine.

Still, I've enjoyed a good bit of debating and it stayed fairly amicable!
 
simon ess said:
Sorry Adam - I've lost track of the point you're making in relation to gay marriage.

Sorry, I'm not being awkward, I'm just not sure where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

It went off topic when all of this anti gay marriage business got compared to the previous race issues in America.

I've finished on the topic now as I feel I'm side tracking too much.
 
ding76uk said:
And that makes better because?

I don't get where this is going re: gay marriage
Click to expand...

See post above. Sorry I was getting carried away in a history argument it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top