Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Never forget that England is, at heart, a progressive nation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
122 replies to this topic

#21 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:40 AM

Personally I don't think churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever should be licensed to carry out weddings.

People should get legally married in a civil ceremony at a registry office. If they want to have a religious service as well that's fine by me, but it should have no legal standing.

That's me.  I'm done.


#22 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,686 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:47 AM

I am heterosexual and got married in a church ceremony thirty odd years ago. I paid the penalty and have regretted it ever since.

 

Why should gay people be allowed to get away scot free.

;)


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#23 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,394 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:23 AM

Personally I don't think churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever should be licensed to carry out weddings.

People should get legally married in a civil ceremony at a registry office. If they want to have a religious service as well that's fine by me, but it should have no legal standing.

 

Isn't that basically how it works though?  Only the Church of England can actually marry you, the rest need the presence of a registrar?

 

I think it's because Catholics can't be trusted.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#24 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,368 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 08:45 AM

Marriage hasn't been religious for about 150 years. There was a spell when it was entirely religious - during this time most people did not get married.

Yes but it is still basically a religious ceremony for all that. ...man and woman. .eyes of God and all that. I have heard more than one gay person say the same thing as Brian Sewell.

People who don't actually see gay people as just, well, people, often feel the need to speak for and be offended for them. If they knew any they would discover that agreeing with everything they say or do is ludicrously patronising.

#25 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,370 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:13 AM

Yes but it is still basically a religious ceremony for all that. ...man and woman. .eyes of God and all that. I have heard more than one gay person say the same thing as Brian Sewell.

People who don't actually see gay people as just, well, people, often feel the need to speak for and be offended for them. If they knew any they would discover that agreeing with everything they say or do is ludicrously patronising.


The Tories recently exposed themselves as patronising by using the word "they" to homogenise a group of people, I fear you've done the same.

LUNEW.jpg


#26 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,368 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:30 AM

The Tories recently exposed themselves as patronising by using the word "they" to homogenise a group of people, I fear you've done the same.

No I am doing the opposite. I don't class gay people as one big group who think and act the same. So I don't worry about thinking that I have to agree with this that or the other simply to be seen as on trend. I am not particularly bothered about marriage, gay or otherwise and don't see why some gay people were so desperate to push the issue and I know several gay people who feel the same.

#27 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,629 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:33 AM

It's a hugely important thing for a tiny but highly- vociferous minority who have suffered discrimination almost since time began. Once the current media furore dies down, the trendy lefties will move on to something else. Have patience.



#28 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,629 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:52 AM

The Tories recently exposed themselves as patronising by using the word "they" to homogenise a group of people, I fear you've done the same.

 

 

No. in both cases.   You maybe wanted them to, but the facts tell a different story..in both cases. 



#29 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,752 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 10:29 AM

It's a hugely important thing for a tiny but highly- vociferous minority who have suffered discrimination almost since time began. Once the current media furore dies down, the trendy lefties will move on to something else. Have patience.

 

It's hardly a trendy lefty issue these days. The law allowing same-sex marriage was introduced to Parliament by a government led by a Conservative Prime Minister, and credit to them for that. It had cross-party support too. Times have changed, things have moved on, and thank goodness for that.

 

Not all gay couples will want to get married, not all gay people will support or agree with the new law either, Brian Sewell being one such individual, but that's not an excuse for saying no gay people should be able to get married. That would be as silly as arguing that as not all straight couples choose to get married, no other straight couples should be allowed to either.

 

This is really all about equality under the law. That has been achieved and it is a good thing.

 

Some same-sex marriages have already taken place. The earth has not tilted off its axis, and nor will it.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#30 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 11,171 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 11:09 AM

The people I feel sorry for are those who shelled out for a civil partnership ceremony who will now get earache from their partner until they get "properly married".

 

Or is it only heterosexual relationships that run that way?

Based on the gay couples I know they'll get it worse than in a heterosexual relationship.

 

Seems basic sense that civil marriages don't discriminate but religious groups can set whatever criteria they want on who can marry there. Basically for a Catholic Church to deny homosexual marriages is no different to their currently not allowing divorcees to remarry there or their insistence on at least one of the couple being a church member (it always was two). On the flipside there's some churches that want to allow gay marriages and there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed.

 

I actually see no reason for polygamy to be banned in civil marriage either as the rule only exists because of Christian (and Roman) prohibitions against it, which is the only reason gay marriage was banned.



#31 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,370 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 11:22 AM

It's a hugely important thing for a tiny but highly- vociferous minority who have suffered discrimination almost since time began. Once the current media furore dies down, the trendy lefties will move on to something else. Have patience.


We are ALL part of minorities, but not all minorities have been legally discriminated against.

I see you have a new avatar John - I see you're a supporter of US domination.

LUNEW.jpg


#32 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,752 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 11:29 AM

I see you have a new avatar John - I see you're a supporter of US domination.

 

Please don't drag the thread off topic with personal comments.

 

Thank you.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#33 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,594 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:00 PM

It's a hugely important thing for a tiny but highly- vociferous minority who have suffered discrimination almost since time began. Once the current media furore dies down, the trendy lefties will move on to something else. Have patience.

I think we often import our furores from the USA and there are many places in the USA where it is not out of proportion.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#34 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:01 PM

It's hardly a trendy lefty issue these days. The law allowing same-sex marriage was introduced to Parliament by a government led by a Conservative Prime Minister, and credit to them for that. It had cross-party support too.


Let's not get carried away with this. The third reading of the Bill was passed by 316 to 161

136 Tories voted against it, 117 in favour. Cameron, to his credit, supported this. The Tories did not. It was passed by Cameron alongside Labour, the Lib Dems and less than half the Tories.

Cameron's unflinching support of this really should be commended. He pushed it through without the support of his party. It is thought that his support for this is a major contributor in the collapse of Tory membership. In the long run, gay marriage could cost him his job.

That's me.  I'm done.


#35 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,394 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:32 PM

Yes but it is still basically a religious ceremony for all that. ...man and woman. .eyes of God and all that. 

 

You can get married without the eyes of god.  You can't even mention god in civil weddings.

 

Most of the gayists I know seem very pleased to be able to get married.  A couple see it as irrelevant to their lives.

 

Almost like they're the same in every way as my larger collection of straight friends: some are married, some cohabiting, some on a personal quest to sleep with every member of the opposite sex in their town, some spending their lives talking to strangers on the internet ...


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#36 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,594 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:53 PM


......some spending their lives talking to strangers on the internet ...

Could be worse, at least they are getting sex out of it.

 

The rest of us just talk about rugby.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#37 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,752 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:04 PM

Let's not get carried away with this. The third reading of the Bill was passed by 316 to 161

136 Tories voted against it, 117 in favour. Cameron, to his credit, supported this. The Tories did not. It was passed by Cameron alongside Labour, the Lib Dems and less than half the Tories.

Cameron's unflinching support of this really should be commended. He pushed it through without the support of his party. It is thought that his support for this is a major contributor in the collapse of Tory membership. In the long run, gay marriage could cost him his job.

 

It would once have been unthinkable that as many as 117 Tory MPs would vote in favour of such legislation. Cameron may not have commanded a majority for it within his own party, but they'll catch up eventually. As it stands, there was a clear cross-party majority for it in the House of Commons which demonstrates this has become a maintsream issue, and is not the preserve of 'trendy lefties' as some would have it.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#38 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,629 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:12 AM

It's hardly a trendy lefty issue these days. The law allowing same-sex marriage was introduced to Parliament by a government led by a Conservative Prime Minister, and credit to them for that. It had cross-party support too. Times have changed, things have moved on, and thank goodness for that.

Not all gay couples will want to get married, not all gay people will support or agree with the new law either, Brian Sewell being one such individual, but that's not an excuse for saying no gay people should be able to get married. That would be as silly as arguing that as not all straight couples choose to get married, no other straight couples should be allowed to either.

This is really all about equality under the law. That has been achieved and it is a good thing.

Some same-sex marriages have already taken place. The earth has not tilted off its axis, and nor will it.



Too Pavlovian, John. I didn't say it was a trendy lefty issue. However, in my view, the view of someone who is glad to see this change, the trendy lefties have certainly led the celebrations to a wholly disproportionate extent.

Still, as I said, they'll soon be moving on .
.now the Panel on Climate Change report is out they can spend many a happy hour squaring the circle of global warming and too high energy prices.

#39 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,845 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:02 AM

I've been confused by the whole debate. I thought we already had gay marriage before, but apparently this extends a number of rights to gay couples that straight couples have and that weren't enjoyed previously under civil partnerships. Well that's fine by me, it absolutely should the same.

The argument though seems to have been around a load of religious cobblers that have long since ceased to be important. I have no truck with this, just as I have no truck with those gay people who felt gay marriage (in those particular terms) gave them some kind of spiritual elevation. Steve May had it right earlier in the thread, I thought - marriage should be civil ceremony and any of the other ###### is purely decoration.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#40 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,370 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:26 AM

Too Pavlovian, John. I didn't say it was a trendy lefty issue. However, in my view, the view of someone who is glad to see this change, the trendy lefties have certainly led the celebrations to a wholly disproportionate extent.

Still, as I said, they'll soon be moving on .
.now the Panel on Climate Change report is out they can spend many a happy hour squaring the circle of global warming and too high energy prices.


Maybe "trendy lefties" are just a bit more concerned about equality of human beings in general John? I'm wondering what the knees of the badly dressed, out of touch righties are twitching at?

LUNEW.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users