I thought this government were in favour of same sex marriage? What's going on?
I'm very confused.
...so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples."«
Fuck the coalition.
Fuck the Church of England.
Fuck the Church in Wales.
Fuck having an established church.
Fuck the reply to this post that references Sid Vicious.
worrying that the previously announced plans for gay marriage could be challenged in the ECHR which could potentially mean churches would be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies.
but hey gotta placate those right wingers somehow.
so it seems very strange they are now going to enshine the extra opposite in law.
(*well the main ones)
Good one Dave. When he said that I was assuming the kind of law that made them have to do it. Not the other way around. What a prick. <---not that this is news to me
however I suspect in the eyes of the party and the church of England it's important that he's seen as someone who 'upholds religious freedoms'. By banning same-sex marriage they still allow churches to opt-in however there's less scope for someone to appeal if the church refuses to conduct their same sex marriage. The chances of someone looking to appeal a decision like that, is highly unlikely though.
If you want your pictures taken in a fancy church then good luck to you, you can have a separate blessing. If you're gay then bac luck, no blessimng for you, but reallyt, is it THAT important to you to have ytour marriage blessed by a dude who thinks that your sexualtiy is inferior?
Load of bloody nonsense.
Despite it being riddled with some pretty *out there* typing
a) isn't marriage actually legally defined as being between a man and a woman? so, do they have to rewrite the legal definition?
b) how come gay people want to be married? like, i can only imagine that if i was gay and wanted to build a life with someone then the church shunning me would just be cause for mw being like "fuck you", how come gay people want to be part of something that doesn't want them?
of registry office marriage vs civil partnership isn't that an entirely semantic debate as they are legally the same anyway?
They should both be renamed as ''bff forever extra special promise parties xxxx'' to avoid confusion.
in a heartbeat.
and that's all you need to concern yourself with in terms of gay peoples' motivations for wanting to get married.
there are religions that want to offer gay marriage. so, as much as some specific religions wish it were the case, it's not a simple case of 'religion = down with gays'.
and i'm not really talking about"down with gays" stuff. i just mean based on the refusal to offer it (in many cases). i went to a club once and they wouldn't let me in because i had trainers on and i was like haha! fine.
going from teh fun lulz and bants, and into a weird faux idiot passive aggressive stifling of debate by knowingly posting piffle about something that's actually interesting and affects peoples' lives.
but when anyone calls you for it, you point out how you're not being nasty so what's the problem, or you do the 'you seem angry' thing, or whatever.
as sheeldz said the other day, you were a cool guy when we had a few drinks together irl. this internet belming isn't all out awful, sometimes it's fun, but sometimes it's just nah, bro.
it wasn't relevant
you've gone for the 'i was genuinely trying to understand something and if you don't play along then /you're/ the one who's stifling debate' angle. or something.
you understand entirely.
but if you didn't (or even if you did), japes' point was relevant.
that undermine a serious part of who they are. sorry if that's a simple concept to most people
so it's nothing to do with me
that's not even close to what i said, and you know it.
but not everything is about you or applicable directly to you.
...but if you approach a subject with any sort of sophistication beyond the level of 'i don't get it cos i can't apply it to my life', you might find you end up in conversations more enlightening than this turgid subthread of non-discussion.
that's a religious thing isn't it? party time
that's played a major part in their education and home/family life. This can be very difficult to just separate yourself from all of a sudden, regardless of how that seems to an observer.
i wasn't really talking about it in a legal sense
l for you to go to a club. plus some other stuff that makes that story irrelevant.
that has nothing to do with the fact that there are some clubs out there who have people who would like to be a member, but they're not allowed to take them on as members simply because some other club doesn't want that club to have that member.
i just find it strange that people would so desperately want to be involved in something where they are seen as inferior. PO said the exact same thing up above
PO did not say what you said. Let's have no more attempts at piggy backing on proper posts, eh? It's not a very becoming exit strategy.
let's just be clear though that your input here is just as (in)significant as my query.
If a gay couple worship in a Quaker church, and they want to get married in that church, and the minister is happy to perform the ceremony, why shouldn't it go ahead?
good work joey. dunno though, totally outside my realm of knowledge. is that's what happening?
and you can knock the lip trembling over some alleged insults on the head, too.
there was no lip trembling
But if i was a church of england christian and my church refused to let me marry my girlfriend, I would have a lot less time for that church and I inagine i'd think 'stuff them'.
upthread, PO has offered a legal suggestion, and then a personal take. then another personal take here.
you've tried to fit the worldview of Gay People to your worldview.
no-one hates you. they just wish you'd opt to tone down the (often appealing) wide-eyed affectation. note how even when people are having a wee gripe at ya, they struggle to do out without throwing a compliment into the mix.
maybe my take on this whole gay marriage saga IS coloured by my experience in the world. maybe that's even a bad thing, i don't know.
see how easily the antipathy passes
and would like to marry as part of that religion.
and in extreme cases sometimes kill themselves cos of the conflict between two parts of them.
can't really understand why people believe in it
something must be done
ever heard of Unitarianism? oh wait, you're being deliberately obtuse to get a raise out of the likes of me. RIP DiS
then i'm not interested
I don't know exactly, my life's great and all (although I need to get back to my creative projects) but there's been something about the style of debate and the tenor of posting here that's been winding me up something rotten, can't put my finger on it. Maybe I should take a break or something
here to put us all in our place because guess what we're all *ungrateful cunts* who should just *man up*
well how's this for manning up *punches one of sheeldz's oil rigs back into the sea, runs away to Arctic lair*
you're clearly intelligent and conversant and level-headed and open-minded, so why you have to pollute the social board with this whimsical naive hullo-clouds passive-aggressive schtick, like every fucking thread man, please, you've trolled enough, it's over, we've all worked it out, it's just making me angry now, it's over
It's the internet. It's not real.
every single thread into a trolling opportunity. I don't mind when he sticks to the 'is a dog a thing' threads but when he's fucking up the interesting ones it gets pretty old
and everyone fucking jumped. it got as derailed as people wanted it to be
whether by design, by genuine accident, or because of previous, your questioning was questioned because it is/was demonstrably different to PO's point.
but it was a general though. i was actually more interested in the bit i asked about the legal definition of marriage but everyone ignored that because it's not as much fun. maybe it's a passing, throwaway thought that i worded badly. maybe it's that
than ACTUALLY be a bully or a casual racist (i don't mean you though)
it's a simple fix.
but i feel no aggro towards anyone
i sometimes feel aggro and affection at the same time. it's a strange, sexy, feeling.
like in this thread, dismissing religion by saying it must be weird thinking it is a real thing
i am tolerant of your non-belief but saying things like that is deliberate ignorance - thou knowest what thou art doing etc
anyway, do what you want, maybe there's still more people to con
people are welcome to be as religious as they like. i, personally, find it laughable. it's all good
The same religion that supposedly opposes homosexuality also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish, or that we shouldn't wear clothes made from blended fabrics, or that women shouldn't wear trouser suits.
I imagine that lots of Christians some or all of the above.
When the President stands, nobody sits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
an out of date, out of touch, laughing stock of a relic, is probably a good thing in the long run.
Unless you're pretending to be cat_race, in which case, um, lol?
it's going to be illegal for a member of a clergy (or the denominational equivalent) to perform a marriage ceremony unless they have the express permission of their organisation, right? Not suggesting that's any better than 'same sex marriage in church illegalised', but there's a little nuance between the two.
Or have I got it wrong and it will specifically be illegal to marry couples of the same sex specifically within the CoE and Catholic faiths?
• Ensure the legislation states that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.
• Provide an opt-in system for religious organisations who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples.
• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for that purpose.
• Ensure that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales.
I probably haven't articulated it well, but I'm struggling to see how those summary points equal 'Government to illegalise same sex marriage in church'. What I'm seeing is 'Government to not enact law forcing churches to conduct same sex marriage'.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Looks like a brush off.
Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies... But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.
So have the CoE and Catholic churches simply made it 'explicitly' clear that they will not be opting in, or does the legislation itself state that they cannot, at any point (barring a re-write) opt in? Because I think the sentence you quoted allows for both of those options.
I know I'm being dense here.
''The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages''
which comes before the one I posted up there.
It seems to me they are explicitly banned from doing so and can not opt in even if some clergy wanted to (are there are gay clergy so support gay marriage I'm sure)
Doesn't make an effectual difference, but that still some how seems worse to me. :(
we won't force you if you don't want to.
It just makes it harder for it to move on in the future.
the CoE (and CoW) will be banned from doing so and cannot opt in. Other demoninations can opt in if they so choose.
Surely the Government could just roll-out an opt-in system for all faiths and denominations and then wipe their hands of the situation?*
* Realised while writing this that the number of people who never, ever want to see a same sex marriage in a church is probably much bigger than the number who do. Pretty obvious, I guess. And sad.
But 53% of all respondents to the consultation white paper were in favour of it.
who are very concerned that the ECHR will somehow ride "roughshod" over their freedoms
I actually can't believe that this is going ahead. Fuck the people in charge. The generations that come after us will wonder what the fuck was going on, just the same way we consider the segregation by colour in the US as utterly batshit.
I can't believe that Church of England is getting this extra protection - why the fuck should it above all others? Fuck them. What a fucking mess.
Despite this not effecting anyone in Scotland, it does make me want to consider an independent Scotland. You can have your fucking bullshit laws. I'll take civil marriages and civil partnerships and equal marriage over this fucking bollocks anyday.
And if you've ever saw an exchange between the Wza and I, this is a rather grand statement.
swings and roundabouts, the Real Talk gun just hit its mark!
isn't the queen the head of the CoE? i'm sure i read that recently. and isn't the PM her rep in parliament? so, that makes sense doesn't it? that CoE would get this?
"Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England"
so there you go
Defender of the Faith
Defender of the Faith sounds a bit more like a superhero
It's a tough choice.
who would fight against the evil Supreme Governor
andyvine, in my last instruction to you as head of MME, make one of those kickstart things to fraud money out of people then make the game
I'll get someone else to do it
I do hope that everyone roughly in favour of these plans, or even those with concerns (especially the CofE thing), will take the time to let their MP know their views. There are lots of campaigns running at the moment which are getting people to bombard MP's with anti-equal marriage views, and it's important that this is balanced out.
Didn't realise it was cat_race being needy. Can the mods/sean/theo flag up when a thread is just one clueless user singlehandedly sustaining a non-argument? Like a RED DOT instead of a blue dot.
Just think of that moment just as a member of the C of E dies and they realise they've completely wasted their time on earth by dedicating their life to a load of auld bollocks
obvs not happened yet.
please do something about it
with gay marriage being outlawed for the Church in Wales; it's not something it wants to do at the moment, but he doesn't believe it should be ruled out for the future. Seems fair enough to me.
Also, the CiW isn't established, so I'm not clear on what basis the UK Government feels it should be legislating on its behalf.
did anyone see nadine dorries comment the other day that 'I have yet to meet a gay couple in my constituency or beyond who support it'. Found that quite shocking, trying to make out she is representing those she wants to deny this right. Wonder it will come back on her, there must be records of correspondence from constituents and i'd be very surprised if none of hers had ever contacted her about the issue.
Personally I wouldn't want my relationship (if I was in one) ratified by a religion whose teachings state that we're a bunch of dirty sinners who'll burn for eternity, thanks. If I wanted to ensure the (admittedly currently non-existent) fella was looked after financially if I fell under a bus or whatever, a civil partnership would cover that.
I always knew this issue would be a can of worms: all it does is give the closet homophobes an opportunity to come out the woodwork, for little practical gain for anyone.
I don't think she is technically lying, using the words yet to meet avoids that, but it is an extremely disengenious argument to not just imply most gay couples don't support it but to imply those that do are virtually non existent
they're full of mice, and dust, and dusty mice
I mean, it's been established in the past that she is not an honest person. So you can unbunch your pants, internet hero.
If the C of E want to ban in it, let them, it doesn't need to be made illegal surely, they could just like, not do them.
We can't legislate the Church, it seems, but they can still legislate us. If we can forget this, then the government is in the right, if we want free speech we must have it both ways.
I tend to think along the same lines at cat_race up there. Why this desperation to be part of a culture that rejects you? Does a civil partnership infer the same rights as marriage? Then marry anyway. Go to a Quaker church, just say you're married. Whatever. Society will catch up quicker than the church will, they're just reinforcing their own irrelevance.
and outlawing all bridal services, magazines & wedding dress shops
Different people are members of different religions (or none), all of which have differing interpretations on this and many other issues. Whose opinion do you give primacy to?
And whose interpretation of his word?
[something about Hitler goes here]