Gay Marriage

[Mughi]

Well, the Civil Partnership Bill was passed in the UK on Wednesday night, so same sex couples can now pretty much have the same rights as different sex couples. The whole, next of kin and right to insurance and pensions stuff is now in place.

I am very very happy about this

 

[Ice]

Have fun, faggots

 

[Useless]

Step in the right direction - pld

 

[Tnega]

Same species marriages are ok by me.
Whether thats b/g b/b or g/g.
Just as long as there are no b/monkey g/donkey etc etc.

 

[IceDragon]

Just as long as there are no b/monkey g/donkey etc etc.

This also includes LLamas? Would be sad for some people here

Nah honestly I don't think it's wrong to get married for holebis, but kids is something else.
How do you make them anyway ?

 

[Cutter]

Well, the Civil Partnership Bill was passed in the UK on Wednesday night, so same sex couples can now pretty much have the same rights as different sex couples. The whole, next of kin and right to insurance and pensions stuff is now in place.

I am very very happy about this

I think this goes to the heart of the whole matter:

The dictionary defines "marriage" as: 1. the state or relationship of being husband and wife: the institution of marriage. 2. the contract made by a man and a woman to live as husband and wife. 3. the ceremony formalising this union; wedding.

In the UK, the law and all the major religions define "marriage" as a contract of union between a man and a woman. A contract of union between two men, two women, or anything else is thus not "marriage", and never will be.

That is not to say that same sex contracts of union are not recognised by the law, or that they somehow offer less advantages than those conferred by the union of "marriage", as Mughi has pointed out. That is perhaps only as it should be.

IMHO, people have simply become side-tracked by the word "marriage". You would no more call a same sex union "marriage" than you would call an orange an apple. This is only sensible. It does not imply that non-marriage unions are somehow lesser or inferior.

 

[Cutter]

You really have no clue, do ya?

for future reference, when you use the term "faggs" or "queers", that's Badmouthing. It's exactly the same as calling someone a "nigger", and just as unacceptable.

I find it equally offensive when my gay friends call me a "breeder", and their other less savoury terms for hetrosexuals, and I make damn sure to tell them this.

Do unto others etc etc...

 

[Geo]

:Xmaseek:

 

[Mughi]

I find it equally offensive when my gay friends call me a "breeder", and their other less savoury terms for hetrosexuals, and I make damn sure to tell them this.

Do unto others etc etc...

Two wrongs dont make a right.

That being said, I am guilty of calling most people "breeders", but that is just me, its a distinction between me and my decision not to be one, and those who will (whether they make a choice or it just sorta happens to them). Meh. I dont disagree that some would find it offensive

 

[Cutter]

While I agree with you entirely here Useless, unfortunately, our laws do require religious backing - the House of Lords has 26 seats filled with CoE Bishops - during the suggested House of Lords reforms, it is to be changed

Factually incorrect, sorry. The House of Lords is composed of the "Lords Temporal and Spiritual". Temporal is all the life peers, aristocrats etc, and Spiritual is those CoE Bishops. The backing of the House of Lords is not required for any UK legislation at all. The House of Lords can approve, or amend legislation. They can delay it. They cannot stop it. Please read up on the sovreignty of the House of Commons, and refer to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

Those 26 CoE Bishops are in any case wildly outnumbered by all the Labour/Tory/Lib-dem placemen.

 

[Mughi]

Factually incorrect, sorry. The House of Lords is composed of the "Lords Temporal and Spiritual". Temporal is all the life peers, aristocrats etc, and Spiritual is those CoE Bishops. The backing of the House of Lords is not required for any UK legislation at all. The House of Lords can approve, or amend legislation. They can delay it. They cannot stop it. Please read up on the sovreignty of the House of Commons, and refer to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

Those 26 CoE Bishops are in any case wildly outnumbered by all the Labour/Tory/Lib-dem placemen.

No need to get stroppy. I never said that 26 seats out of the hundreds could prevent any law
I just said that they had representation in the Lords and therefore our laws have religious backing. Yes, the old three strikes and your out Parliament Act blah blah blah. No need to read anything extra into simple statements. The fact remains there are currently CoE bishops involved in the legal process in the UK and there is soon to be more religious involvement (even though CoE specifically is being reduced)

 

[Wintermute]

It does not imply that non-marriage unions are somehow lesser or inferior.

The problem was, (until the civil partnerships act) that a same sex union *WAS* lesser and inferior in the eyes of the law, whether we are talking about inheritance, medical consent, yadda yadda yadda.

Still, for once we have a pretty good bill without any crippling compromises - and the problem has pretty much gone away.

time for us "evil atheists"(tm) to move onto our next assault on the church

 

[Cutter]

I just said that they had representation in the Lords and therefore our laws have religious backing.)

That was the part that I objected to. You are being unclear - the way you originally made the point suggested that our laws somehow need religious sanction from an unelected group of bishops before they can be passed, which is incorrect. At least one person appeared to interpret your words in that way.

The existence of CoE Bishops in the House of Lords does not make our laws "religiously backed" any more than the Prime Minister's wife being a Catholic does (although that is a completely different issue I won't go into here), or any more than our laws are "Labour backed", "Tory backed" or whatever just because some of our legislators happen to be Labour/Tory/etc MPs.

Too many arguments are caused by people being imprecise.

"If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say."

 

[Cutter]

The fact remains there are currently CoE bishops involved in the legal process in the UK and there is soon to be more religious involvement (even though CoE specifically is being reduced)

You're on slippery ground there Jen. We also have male, female, homosexual, pagan, islamic, rich, poor, etc etc etc involvement in the legal process in the UK. Are you seriously suggesting that religion should preclude someone from political participation? I hope not.

If on the other hand what you are saying is "I object to a person having disproportionate political influence on account of their religious beliefs", then that I would agree 100% with.

 

[Mughi]

Two things.

1. We are not all lawyers, while I spend the time and effort and aim to be as specific and as clear as possible no matter what, I cannot expend enough effort in an online gaming discussion forum ensuring that all traces of ambiguity is removed from what I say. I dislike it when people dont put in any effort, but the level of effort has to be appropriate. I think you read far too much into one particular phrase.

2. I would not suggest that someone should be excluded from participating in the politcal arena because of their religious affiliation. However ... I do think that if the sole reason for them being selected for participation is their religion then that is wrong. Just as I object to female-only MP candidate lists I am similarly against CoE only participants, or even pagan-only, athiest-only, poor-only selection criteria.

 

[Cutter]

Two things.

1. We are not all lawyers, while I spend the time and effort and aim to be as specific and as clear as possible no matter what, I cannot expend enough effort in an online gaming discussion forum ensuring that all traces of ambiguity is removed from what I say. I dislike it when people dont put in any effort, but the level of effort has to be appropriate. I think you read far too much into one particular phrase.

2. I would not suggest that someone should be excluded from participating in the politcal arena because of their religious affiliation. However ... I do think that if the sole reason for them being selected for participation is their religion then that is wrong. Just as I object to female-only MP candidate lists I am similarly against CoE only participants, or even pagan-only, athiest-only, poor-only selection criteria.

1. I realise that, but some people around here, naming no names, are too quick to jump in with their "I disagree with x because of y" attitude, and don't fully explain where they are coming from. That is simple laziness. If someone makes a point, they should be as clear as possible. That is all to do with general debating skills, and nothing to do with your job. Don't let your personal dislike of religion marr your otherwise good comments.

2. Well say so then ffs!

 

[sobo]

I may be a bit biased on this matter because I am against homosexuals in general, but the idea of two alikely gendered persons 'marrying' is absurd. I agree with the first reply here; it changes its meaning largely.

They can live together, spend their lives together, get a house and share a bed and have "sex", but marrying and raising children should be exclusive to normal couples.

Not that I see raising children and marrying as connected topics - they are two completely different things IMO, for Im against the christian belief of "Sex after marriage" and the like - but the discussion about child adoption would arise directly after granting homos the right to marry. The simple fact it is an adoption states its wrong by means of nature. I think nature and way it arranged things is a very high and important scale to meassure things with.

Preventing homosexual couples from marrying and raising children should therefore be mandatory to show them they are not normal, at least by nature's means (some may think they are).

 

[Cazzy]

I bet Sobo loves lesbian "porn"

 

[sobo]

I don't
But that may also be related to actual lesbians that Ive met/seen. They didnt exactly manifest my picture of two hot females playing with eachother, that the porn business claims for the matter.

 

[Wintermute]

I may be a bit biased on this matter because I am against homosexuals in general, but the idea of two alikely gendered persons 'marrying' is absurd. I agree with the first reply here; it changes its meaning largely.

They can live together, spend their lives together, get a house and share a bed and have "sex", but marrying and raising children should be exclusive to normal couples.

Not that I see raising children and marrying as connected topics - they are two completely different things IMO, for Im against the christian belief of "Sex after marriage" and the like - but the discussion about child adoption would arise directly after granting homos the right to marry. The simple fact it is an adoption states its wrong by means of nature. I think nature and way it arranged things is a very high and important scale to meassure things with.

Preventing homosexual couples from marrying and raising children should therefore be mandatory to show them they are not normal, at least by nature's means (some may think they are).

a bit biased? complete homophobe might be a better description - your comments are dripping with it. This is a truly horrible bundle of prejudices, and also a fairly hefty pile of wrong information.

let's see...

"normal" couples, huh? so what about couples from different ethnic backgrounds? couples with a large age difference? couples where one has red hair and the other brown? one jew and one islamic?

for me (and thankfully, for a great many people) a "normal" couple is one where the couple loves each other and wants to build a future together. disliking a couple because they are gay is a dark mirror on your own person, not any reflection on them.

You say that nature and the way it arranged things is a high and important scale to measure things with. I don't agree. If we followed this thinking, all medicine is wrong, as nature intended the weak and sick to die. I (along with anyone who has ever required surgery) would be dead, and that would be a good thing, because it's "natural".

That being said, let's assume you are right for a moment -

Dolphins routinely rape and kill females who will not allow them to mate. This is natural. does this mean that rape is okay?

Chimpanzees form raiding gangs which will seek out individuals from other groups, drag them back to their own territory, kill them and eat them. This is natural. Does this mean that abduction, murder and cannibalism are okay?

If you want to use nature as a guide, perhaps you should consider that homosexuality has been observed in the wild in almost every species we have studied, from wolves where the sub-alpha males will mate with each other, to chimpanzees where both male-male and female-female interactions have been studied, even to ducks.

For that matter, Homosexual, Necrophiliac Rape has been observed and recorded in "nature". http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm

How about we prevent Germans from marrying and having children, to show them that they are not normal? When it comes right down to it, your comment is no less ridiculous.