Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

Former Archbishop goes a bit over the top

90 posts in this topic

Words don't fail me.

Carey and Widdecombe are utter and complete bigoted lunatic fringe attention seeking religious nutters who should be treated like that other lunatic David Iyke, they should be held up to ridicule for their utterly medieval outpourings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just one more reason I want a truly secular country. Keep religion out of politics!

This is one of those times I'm glad I started admitting I wasn't a christian, and openly became a Humanist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carey was Thatcher's poodle; appointed because she didn't want anyone standing up to her like Robert Runcie did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words don't fail me.

Carey and Widdecombe are utter and complete bigoted lunatic fringe attention seeking religious nutters who should be treated like that other lunatic David Iyke, they should be held up to ridicule for their utterly medieval outpourings.

excellent post, saved me a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just one more reason I want a truly secular country. Keep religion out of politics!

This is one of those times I'm glad I started admitting I wasn't a christian, and openly became a Humanist.

The vast majority of anti-gay legislation does not stem from any religous belief but secular ones.

Religion is a part of society keeping religion out of politics is problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of anti-gay legislation does not stem from any religous belief but secular ones.

Go on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, a fine example of Godwin's Law:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Godwin's_law

If you read the OP there is a direct quote to the Nazi's therefore Godwin is irrelevant.

I believe that any union formed between 2 people should be allowed to be called marriage. I don't see why we should constantly define ourselves by our sexual orientation and if anything it makes the debate go on longer than it needs to and is frankly boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of anti-gay legislation does not stem from any religous belief but secular ones.

Religion is a part of society keeping religion out of politics is problematic.

I'm not sure we have much (if any) "anti-gay legislation" that a statement like "the vast majority of" would begin to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the OP there is a direct quote to the Nazi's therefore Godwin is irrelevant.

I believe that any union formed between 2 people should be allowed to be called marriage. I don't see why we should constantly define ourselves by our sexual orientation and if anything it makes the debate go on longer than it needs to and is frankly boring.

You are allowed to called a "civil partnership" "marriage" if you want. There is no law against and you won't get taken to court. What the debate seems to revolve around is that the state ought to call it marriage as well.

I don't really see the point of a huge debate over the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage. Civil partners have the same rights as spouses and so rights aren't really affected, especially since there aren't any laws restricting how people describe civil partnerships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are allowed to called a "civil partnership" "marriage" if you want. There is no law against and you won't get taken to court. What the debate seems to revolve around is that the state ought to call it marriage as well.

I don't really see the point of a huge debate over the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage. Civil partners have the same rights as spouses and so rights aren't really affected, especially since there aren't any laws restricting how people describe civil partnerships.

By the same token, if it is such a superficial change then why not them change it?

The problem is that is subconsciously promotes the idea that homosexual relationships are different and lesser than heterosexual relationships. They aren't quite up to the same standard as a heterosexual marriage and therefore have to call it something different. If you fall in love with a woman you can get married, if you fall in love with a man then you can have a civil-partnership and call it a marriage yourself if you want. What nonsense.

I've read opposition to it and yet to see anything that doesn't stem from religious reasons against homosexuality. They claim it would be this great evil that would destroy society but have yet to explain how it could in the slightest. I'm happily married and fail to see how it effects me in any way, or how it will affect my future children. If they are gay I very much doubt that the legalisation of gay marriage will have contributed to it in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage is merely a contract between two people.

These days the rich and famous actually put clauses into those contracts. Is a marriage between two people with clauses regarding money not more against the 'instituion' of marriage than two people of the same sex entering an open no clauses marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, if it is such a superficial change then why not them change it?

I don't personally have a problem with it being changed but I don't see any particular need to do so.

The problem is that is subconsciously promotes the idea that homosexual relationships are different and lesser than heterosexual relationships. They aren't quite up to the same standard as a heterosexual marriage and therefore have to call it something different. If you fall in love with a woman you can get married, if you fall in love with a man then you can have a civil-partnership and call it a marriage yourself if you want. What nonsense.

I've read opposition to it and yet to see anything that doesn't stem from religious reasons against homosexuality. They claim it would be this great evil that would destroy society but have yet to explain how it could in the slightest. I'm happily married and fail to see how it effects me in any way, or how it will affect my future children. If they are gay I very much doubt that the legalisation of gay marriage will have contributed to it in any way.

Having a different name for something does not imply that one is better than the other. Following your argument, we should abolish the term "homosexual" and call everybody "heterosexual" just in case anyone thinks that this implies that gays (or indeed straights) are lesser beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally have a problem with it being changed but I don't see any particular need to do so.

Having a different name for something does not imply that one is better than the other. Following your argument, we should abolish the term "homosexual" and call everybody "heterosexual" just in case anyone thinks that this implies that gays (or indeed straights) are lesser beings.

This is a poor analogy because heterosexual actually describes something different than homosexual does. They are both relationships but there is a difference in the make up of those relationships and a need for a descriptor, in the same way that we describe brown hair and blonde hair. Neither implies that one is better than the other.

By not changing it, or suggesting that it shouldn't be changed, it is implying that a homosexual relationship is different (and lesser) from a heterosexual one. In this instance it is called something different not because it describes something different (it doesn't), it is called something different because of what it is. The reality is that the majority of the opposition to this comes from people that disagree with homosexuality full stop.

By continuing to deny them the chance to marry, in reality we are pandering to homophobia. Obviously, it's not a huge issue in itself and it makes little actual difference to individuals or relationships but it is the impression that it gives about homosexuality. Whether you see it or not, forcing them to call something that is essentially the same something different, is ludicrous. What is the official justification for calling it something different? Once you take people that don't want gay relationships to exist out of the equation, there is essentially nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It implies that it is different, it does not imply that it is lesser. There is no logic for suggesting that it is lesser and not, for example, greater unless the name was something pejorative. Civil partnership is not offensive in any way.

And again nobody is forcing people tom call it anything, civil partnership is the name the state uses, you can call it what you like.

edit: and I don't see who is making what argument has any relevance. An argument is only as good as its logic and this doesn't depend on the person making the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By not changing it, or suggesting that it shouldn't be changed, it is implying that a homosexual relationship is different (and lesser) from a heterosexual one.

No it isn't. It isn't implying that it is different, it is stating quite clearly that it is, which it is. A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two people of the same gender and is therefore different from a heterosexual relationship which is a relationship between two people of different genders. The statement isn't implying that a homosexual relationship is lesser either. It is making no comment on its value at all. Certain people are inferring that it is but that says more about those who are inferring rather than any implication.

Marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian church, if memory serves during the Middle Ages. For example, it was the Christian Church which decided monogomy was the way to go where marriage was concerned. Someone on here said that marriage is just a word. Well, it isn't. It has meaning, legal, social and moral meaning. That is why there is a fight about it. Would you abandon the monogomous marriage? Go all Mormon? Because part of what marriage means is monogomy. Another is a lifetime commitment. That's already been abandoned even if people start out generally with that intention! Should there be no legal protection either? That also is an element of the meaning of marriage. As are financial obligations. In previous times it also involved effective ownership, the husband of the wife; and entitlement, the eldest child to the fortune (or lack of it). Marriage is much more than just a word. In the Christian Church the meaning also included procreation, something that gay couples cannot do biologically. Therefore, a 'three person marriage' is very much a possibility, given that someone somewhere will have to supply either the sperm or the egg to create a child.

Gay people have all the legal rights under civil partnership that straight people have under marriage. They can also call their union whatever they want to, regardless of what it is called in law. For gay people to be legally married, however, first require a change in the meaning of marriage as formalised in this country originally by the Christian Church. Therefore, it is understandable that Christians in this country are generally not happy with the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Christian Church the meaning also included procreation, something that gay couples cannot do biologically.

Does the church not recognise the marriage of an infertile person or the marriage of two sixty year olds who aren't likely to get on board and start a family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. It isn't implying that it is different, it is stating quite clearly that it is, which it is. A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two people of the same gender and is therefore different from a heterosexual relationship which is a relationship between two people of different genders. The statement isn't implying that a homosexual relationship is lesser either. It is making no comment on its value at all. Certain people are inferring that it is but that says more about those who are inferring rather than any implication.............................................................. Marriage is much more than just a word. In the Christian Church the meaning also included procreation, something that gay couples cannot do biologically. Therefore, a 'three person marriage' is very much a possibility, given that someone somewhere will have to supply either the sperm or the egg to create a child.

How is it different?

Two people that love one another and are prepared to make a lifelong commitment to each other regardless of gender share many of the same challenges, strains, joys and sorrows as any other two people. So far as I can see the only significant measure of "difference" is your point abput procreation by which logic an infertile heterosexual couple could not be married and a couple who decide for whatever reason not to have children should have their marriage annulled.

Beaten to it by the Ginger one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I can see the only significant measure of "difference" is your point abput procreation

So you have identified a difference. Being infertile is a naff red herring brought in when people can't face admitting the facts. The point is about potential. When two people try to have children generally speaking they have no idea whether they will get lucky and clinch the deal. However, a straight couple has the potential to get lucky. A gay couple does not. Their equipment is not complementary; they will simply never be able to have children with each other. That is a difference; it is THE difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have identified a difference. Being infertile is a naff red herring brought in when people can't face admitting the facts. The point is about potential. When two people try to have children generally speaking they have no idea whether they will get lucky and clinch the deal. However, a straight couple has the potential to get lucky. A gay couple does not. Their equipment is not complementary; they will simply never be able to have children with each other. That is a difference; it is THE difference.

Prince Charles & Camilla had kids while married to other people, but are too old to have kids married to each other. It didn't stop them being married and it won't stop him being head of the Church of England when he becomes King either, so the procreation angle is as much of a red herring as the religious angle on this matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince Charles & Camilla had kids while married to other people, but are too old to have kids married to each other. It didn't stop them being married and it won't stop him being head of the Church of England when he becomes King either, so the procreation angle is as much of a red herring as the religious angle on this matter

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

So, the Christian church invented marriage now?

Your historical argument holds no weight whatsoever. There will have been marriage on these shores before Christianity ever featured and monogamous too, the Romans only permitted one partner.

We only live in a Christian country in only the loosest sense. They certainly don't hold any sway over how the citizens of this country choose to define marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not particularly bothered about fertility / infertility but the customs surrounding a gay marriage would differ considerably from a straight one and hence be thought of as different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

We call a secular union of two people of different gender "marriage" and the majority of people in this country would not identify themselves as Christian so the relevance of a questionable historical claim is tenuous at best,

Your claim is that marriage should include the potential of procreation, by that count Charles and Camilla as an example could not be married as they could not have children together. The other side of your argument is of course that there are many examples of partners in a marriage with children who then leave because they realise they are gay or lesbian, presumably you'd accept they could be married because they

both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Pocketmags Digital Magazine Newsstand