89 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

I don't think so. I had a female best "man" when I got married and just for balance's sake my younger brother was chief bridesmaid. I've been to weddings where the "groom's speech" was made by the bride and where the bride was given away by her sister, where the bride's father's speech was made by a non-related guest and where the parents of both parties were not present. All marriages, most still going strong.

All would be thought to be "different" from the norm.

[Shadow]

This is all about ceremony though, and ceremony is only the initiation into marriage. Ceremonies can encompass all sorts of things.

That post was an answer to Northern Sol's specific point about the ceremony. I agree that the ceremony and marriage are two quite different things.

[Shadow]

All would be thought to be "different" from the norm.

So would a wedding ceremony underwater or in a hot air balloon or in a drive thru chapel-o-love in Vegas with an Elvis lookalike officiating. They all count as marriage though.

[Shadow]

But that is not what you are seeking. People can be different and equal, hence my reference to gender differences. Male and female are equal, but different. Equality does not mean identical. Civil partnerships serve gay couples well. They provide all the legal rights and obligations afforded to straight couples. There is no need to change anything because both are now equal. They are not identical and never will be identical and what some gay people and the straight champions of this particular cause are unable or unwilling to accept is that they never will be identical. They are different, will always will be different and that is just how it is. However, that is not to say the gay couple in a civil partnership - which they may or may not choose to call marriage - is less equal than the couple in a straight marriage. They are not. They have all the same legal rights and obligations. So how are they unequal?

They are unequal because one group want the status, dignity, romance and respect afforded by society to "marriage" which with the best will in the world "civil union" does not. It is unfair because one group is seeking to deny that status, dignity, romance and respect to another group for no discernible good reason other than bigotry and semantics, neither of which are good enough.

Now, about Charles and Camilla and the divorced gay fathers....?

[Shadow]

Charles and Camilla and the divorced gay fathers

Is that a Daily Mail Headline in waiting?

[Northern Sol]

So would a wedding ceremony underwater or in a hot air balloon or in a drive thru chapel-o-love in Vegas with an Elvis lookalike officiating. They all count as marriage though.

Indeed, the state calls them all "marriages", some would not be recognised as such by various religious bodies. There is no universal recognition of marriage just a universal recognition of the rights and obligations that go with it.

[Shadow]

Indeed, the state calls them all "marriages", some would not be recognised as such by various religious bodies. There is no universal recognition of marriage just a universal recognition of the rights and obligations that go with it.

Agreed, but the state and society here accept them as marriages so the same should apply for Brian and Keith or Wendy and Jane,

[Northern Sol]

They are unequal because one group want the status, dignity, romance and respect afforded by society to "marriage" which with the best will in the world "civil union" does not. It is unfair because one group is seeking to deny that status, dignity, romance and respect to another group for no discernible good reason other than bigotry and semantics, neither of which are good enough.

Now, about Charles and Camilla and the divorced gay fathers....?

The phrase "civil union" is only ever likely to appear on a government form, now if you think filling in a form ought to be romantic then I don't think a name change is going to achieve that.

[Northern Sol]

Agreed, but the state and society here accept them as marriages so the same should apply for Brian and Keith or Wendy and Jane,

The state accepts them as being an equivalent; society is entitled to make up their own minds.

[Shadow]

The phrase "civil union" is only ever likely to appear on a government form, now if you think filling in a form ought to be romantic then I don't think a name change is going to achieve that.

So we're agreed then, call them both marriage and be done with it.

[Northern Sol]

So we're agreed then, call them both marriage and be done with it.

How about you call them what you like, I'll call them what I like and the state can call them what it likes?

[gingerjon]

So we're agreed then, call them both marriage and be done with it.

This would seem to be the simplest solution.

[Northern Sol]

Shooting all gayists would be simple but that doesn't make it a good solution.

[Maximus Decimus]

Shooting all gayists would be simple but that doesn't make it a good solution.

If we're being technical it would actually be very difficult to do that.

[Northern Sol]

If we're being technical it would actually be very difficult to do that.

It's very difficult to organise weddings too.

[Maximus Decimus]

Whereas I believe in a country in which people should be able to express their views freely and without fear and with due respect afforded them. The reference to a 'three person marriage' is spot on, for example, because - as I said earlier - gay people cannot biologically have children and therefore a third person is always going to be involved. Not sometimes, as in the case of when straight people are unable to conceive; but always because gay people cannot conceive with each other. So that is actually an accurate observation on the case and a relevant one because bringing a third person into the relationship could cause difficulties and certainly undermines the meaning of marriage as it is applied in this country: which is a union between a man and a woman. That is the meaning of it but obviously the meaning can be changed. If marriage is legally applied to gay couples then the meaning of marriage has changed.

Whereas I believe in a country in which people should be able to express their views freely and without fear and with due respect afforded them. The reference to a 'three person marriage' is spot on, for example, because - as I said earlier - gay people cannot biologically have children and therefore a third person is always going to be involved. Not sometimes, as in the case of when straight people are unable to conceive; but always because gay people cannot conceive with each other. So that is actually an accurate observation on the case and a relevant one because bringing a third person into the relationship could cause difficulties and certainly undermines the meaning of marriage as it is applied in this country: which is a union between a man and a woman. That is the meaning of it but obviously the meaning can be changed. If marriage is legally applied to gay couples then the meaning of marriage has changed.

This last statement it debatable but it is essentially the crux of the argument.

This is what I struggle to understand. If this is all that is at stake, then why would anybody be so angry about it? Why would the Catholic church force statements to be read out at churches and schools, why would Archbishop after Bishop be speaking out against it as a great evil. Surely it is just a minor annoyance, it is essentially just semantics.

I'd love to hear exactly what they think is going to happen as a result of the change in name. They have overwhelmingly failed to point out exactly how it will lead to the destruction of society as we know it. In my opinion it is all just a smokescreen to hide homophobic views. They might accept homosexuals and even like them but they still see it as a problem and worry about it spreading. This for me is what it's all about, they think the more accepted homosexuality is then the more likely people are to be homosexual and this is something that they want to don't want to happen.

[Maximus Decimus]

Because it is different. Man and woman have different names because the genders are different. Which gender is "implied" to be lesser?

Man and Woman actually describes something that is different. A marriage can just as easily be defined as a marriage between two people. There is no need for an extra descriptor. A Muslim marriage and Christian marriage are very different but we still call them 'marriage,' we don't force one of them to change their title.

No, I said that it doesn't make any difference to me, it makes a great deal of difference to some.

That's mind reading on your part.

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin but it also says that "love the sinner, hate the sin". I can't see any hatred of homosexuals in the stance of most opponents. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals should be stoned to death and few are arguing that civil partnerships are wrong.

Once again, I refer you to the weight of response from the Christian side. Do you seriously think it is proportionate for an argument over semantics? You cannot easily separate the sin from the sinner and it inevitably leads to homophobia. The Anglican church is almost ready to split over homosexuality, meaning that it is a very big issue to them. It is clear that the problem isn't with marriage but with homosexuality.

[gingerjon]

Shooting all gayists would be simple but that doesn't make it a good solution.

It's easier to change a word than to shoot lots of people.

Less tidying up.

[Maximus Decimus]

I'd love to know what peoples' opinions are on the changing of the name 'Rugby' in France. Surely as a different sport from Rugby Union, we needed a different descriptor and shouldn't have been allowed to use Rugby, otherwise we were redefining what Rugby is.

Doesn't this in essence make the Unionists right in not allowing us to have their name? I'm sure their intentions were innocent enough...

[Saintslass]

This last statement it debatable but it is essentially the crux of the argument.

This is what I struggle to understand. If this is all that is at stake, then why would anybody be so angry about it?

Except it isn't just semantics.

You've handed me a useful analogy in your later post about rugby. Lots of rugby league supporters get het up - some to the point of risking their blood pressure - about the way in which rugby union has in recent years coopted the word 'rugby' to describe itself rather than use the term 'rugby union'. It has worked, too, as a glance at any media outlet will confirm. Yet rugby union is the original rugby and so they have a more convincing call on it than we league supporters do. So it is with the term marriage. Because the Christian Church - in this country - formalised marriage, the supporters of the church believe they have a greater call on it than the state. Therefore, many supporters of the church get het up - some to the point of risking their blood pressure - about the way in which the state has in recent years coopted the word 'marriage' to describe its own version of the relationship rather than use terms such as 'civil union' (no-faith version). Marriage in this country was originally, in the Middle Ages, a religious commitment as well as a financial and human physical, social and emotional one (in fact the emotional sometimes played no part at all in it). ONLY the church conducted and promoted marriage at that point in history. The state did not. To those of the Christian faith who care, meddling with those elements of marriage mentioned above - and one of those elements includes the prerequisite that it is a man and woman who marry - is sacrilege. Because faith is more central to a person's life than rugby, my analogy slightly breaks down here! But I think you will get the point. This isn't simply a question of semantics. It is a question of meaning, of belief, of tradition, of origins and identity. In short, much, much more than semantics. In much the same way as your surname may be or that a person identifies as English or that your home is an expression of yourself.

Edited by Saintslass, 15 October 2012 - 07:10 PM.