Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 What have any of your deflecting questions got to do with my statement? Read it again doofus - I said marriage in a civil ceremony. Look you took offence when I said you were thick but come on..... Oh dear, you want to calm down if you are going to enage in debate. You end up looking foolish with all the insults. Isn't this thread about being married in a church, which last time i checked, was a religious building? Are you struggling with this as well?
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 What is so wrong about a school that happens to be Catholic for example? As I've already said, if people want to give their kids a Catholic education then should pay for it themselves. IMO it shouldn't be state funded.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 I haven't ducked the valid points. Its a very simple notion. Why would you stay in a religion that didn't approve of your way of life? Why would you stay in a religion where you did not live by their moral code? If you dont do the later then you clearly aren't devout, so why do you care if you have their blessing or not? Clearly you think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights and status as straight people. We'll agree to differ on that.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Because they are different. If the husband cheats in a marriage his wife can divorce on the fact of adultery. If one party cheats in a civil partnership there is no right to seek dissolution on adultery. Additionally, the two things have different names in law. The "divorce" is only called that for straight couples and not all courts are accessible to gay couples. All couples should have the same treatment, to include getting married in a church if they want. I think you'll find there is actually and that a civil partnership can be ended if one party cheats, it's under the grounds of "unreasonable behaviour" It's also called dissolution when a civil partnership ends, it's exactly the same thing as a divorce, does it really matter that the ending of the relationship has a different name?
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Oh dear, you want to calm down if you are going to enage in debate. You end up looking foolish with all the insults. Isn't this thread about being married in a church, which last time i checked, was a religious building? Are you struggling with this as well? Oops, looks like Turkish has appointed himself forum police. If we're only supposed to stick to the points in the OP then why have you been debating with me about religious education? It's not me that's struggling. My question was about marriage in a civil ceremony. Are you going to answer or deflect again?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Clearly you think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights and status as straight people. We'll agree to differ on that. Why not answer my questions? I dont care what gay people do, if they want to get married then fine, but it begs the questions i have raised above does it not? 1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles? 2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life? 3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Oops, looks like Turkish has appointed himself forum police. If we're only supposed to stick to the points in the OP then why have you been debating with me about religious education? It's not me that's struggling. My question was about marriage in a civil ceremony. Are you going to answer or deflect again? It's the needing to have the blessing of marriages by a religion that i find odd. I thought that would be fairly obvious, but then you have struggled to grasp most points on here so i'm not surprised. If they want to have a civil marriage then fine, let them. But then also let straight people have civil partnerships. I also dont understand why they cant celebrate what they have and be proud of it. Civil partnerships are exclusive to homosexuals, why cant they enjoy that?
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Why not answer my questions? I dont care what gay people do, if they want to get married then fine, but it begs the questions i have raised above does it not? 1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles? 2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life? 3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout? All perfectly valid points.
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 It's the needing to have the blessing of marriages by a religion that i find odd. I thought that would be fairly obvious, but then you have struggled to grasp most points on here so i'm not surprised. If they want to have a civil marriage then fine, let them. But then also let straight people have civil partnerships. You got there in the end well done you.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 You got there in the end well done you. BUt why not be proud of the exclusiveness of civil partnerships? Who views them as a lesser relationship?
hypochondriac Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 As I've already said, if people want to give their kids a Catholic education then should pay for it themselves. IMO it shouldn't be state funded. That's good then. I went to a private Catholic school
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Why not answer my questions? I dont care what gay people do, if they want to get married then fine, but it begs the questions i have raised above does it not? 1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles? 2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life? 3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout? I'm not expert on the Christian religion but from what I have read I reckon Jesus, if he did exist, wouldn't be homophobic. Or sexist for that matter. The rules seem to be made by a bunch of old bigots, I don't see why you can't be a Christian just because of who you fall in love with.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 I'm not expert on the Christian religion but from what I have read I reckon Jesus, if he did exist, wouldn't be homophobic. Or sexist for that matter. The rules seem to be made by a bunch of old bigots, I don't see why you can't be a Christian just because of who you fall in love with. That doesn't answer any of my questions.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 I think you'll find there is actually and that a civil partnership can be ended if one party cheats, it's under the grounds of "unreasonable behaviour" It's also called dissolution when a civil partnership ends, it's exactly the same thing as a divorce, does it really matter that the ending of the relationship has a different name? Oh dear. You don't get it. Yes, unreasonable behaviour is a way out. The point is that there should be equality. The fundamental problem is that adultery, as a concept, doesn't apply in civil partnerships. Its absence is at the insiste of the church who felt that exclusivity should only apply to straight couples. Again, there should be equality. The dissolution point isn't lost on me. I'm a divorce lawyer. My gay clients should be able to divorce in the same way and in the same court as my straight clients.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Why not answer my questions? I dont care what gay people do, if they want to get married then fine, but it begs the questions i have raised above does it not? 1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles? 2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life? 3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout? Valid questions but it's a matter for individuals to choose. The state and church shouldn't choose for them.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 (edited) Oh dear. You don't get it. Yes, unreasonable behaviour is a way out. The point is that there should be equality. The fundamental problem is that adultery, as a concept, doesn't apply in civil partnerships. Its absence is at the insiste of the church who felt that exclusivity should only apply to straight couples. Again, there should be equality. The dissolution point isn't lost on me. I'm a divorce lawyer. My gay clients should be able to divorce in the same way and in the same court as my straight clients. It clearly does. Sexual unfaithfullness is a subsection of unreasonable behaviour. Why is it so important a cerfitcate of divorce says "adultery"? Does the wronged partner want it advertised to all and sundre that they got cheated on? I would suggest unreasonable behaviour is a far less emotive and kinder thing to have written on your divorce CV. https://www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership 1. Unreasonable behaviour Your partner has behaved so badly that you can no longer bear to live with them. This could include: physical or mental cruelty verbal or physical abuse being irresponsible with money being sexually unfaithful Edited 10 December, 2012 by Turkish
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Valid questions but it's a matter for individuals to choose. The state and church shouldn't choose for them. So who is deciding that gay people want the blessing of the church? Gay people or are people deciding for them?
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 That doesn't answer any of my questions. Yeah it did. Just because the people who currently run the church are a bunch of bigots that doesn't mean you can't be gay and Christian. Jesus had a beard and wore sandals FFS. He was obviously a liberal. I reckon he would have been well chilled out about the whole gay thing.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Yeah it did. Just because the people who currently run the church are a bunch of bigots that doesn't mean you can't be gay and Christian. Jesus had a beard and wore sandals FFS. He was obviously a liberal. I reckon he would have been well chilled out about the whole gay thing. Why would you want to be part of a religion that you thought was run by bigots? Why would you want their blessing on one of the most important days of your life?
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Why would you want to be part of a religion that you thought was run by bigots? Because you believed in Jesus and all that stuff?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Because you believed in Jesus and all that stuff? What does it matter what i believe in? I'm not a homosexual man demanding a religion that i dont follow correctly, that i think is run by bigots and doesn't approve of my way of life bless my wedding.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 It clearly does. Sexual unfaithfullness is a subsection of unreasonable behaviour. Why is it so important a cerfitcate of divorce says "adultery"? Does the wrong partner want it advertised to all and sundre that they got cheated on? I would suggest unreasonable behaviour is a far less emotive thing to have written on your divorce CV. https://www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership 1. Unreasonable behaviour Your partner has behaved so badly that you can no longer bear to live with them. This could include: physical or mental cruelty verbal or physical abuse being irresponsible with money being sexually unfaithful The dvorce document does not say why a couple divorce. The details are only shared if people choose to share. On adultery, you don't get that the law (and church) feel that gay people who commit in the highest recognised way in law to their partner, do not deserve the right to exclusivity in the same way as straight people. Yes gay people can get their through the back door (no pun intended) but I think there's a stronger argument for equality than inequality.
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Why would you want to be part of a religion that you thought was run by bigots? Why would you want their blessing on one of the most important days of your life? There are some people in society who look to move established institutions into the 21st century, be those institutions ones that deal with faith, education, health etc. etc. If we hadn't had such movers and shakers in the past, children would still be working in factories and up chimneys, women would be treated as lesser mortals (cue mysoginist 'jokes') and poor people wouldn't be enfranchised. I have a relative who is a Catholic priest - he favours same sex marriage and posits very liberal views. Not all clergy are dinosaurs.
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 There are some people in society who look to move established institutions into the 21st century, be those institutions ones that deal with faith, education, health etc. etc. If we hadn't had such movers and shakers in the past, children would still be working in factories and up chimneys, women would be treated as lesser mortals (cue mysoginist 'jokes') and poor people wouldn't be enfranchised. I have a relative who is a Catholic priest - he favours same sex marriage and posits very liberal views. Not all clergy are dinosaurs. surely, in this day and age..a freedom to choose is important...so the church(es) should be able to choose....yes..? no porblem then
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 The dvorce document does not say why a couple divorce. The details are only shared if people choose to share. On adultery, you don't get that the law (and church) feel that gay people who commit in the highest recognised way in law to their partner, do not deserve the right to exclusivity in the same way as straight people. Yes gay people can get their through the back door (no pun intended) but I think there's a stronger argument for equality than inequality. So why does it matter that in a civil relationship adultery unfaithfullness fulls under the category of unreasonable behaviour and unlike straight couples they cant divore simply for this? You say yourself that the details are only shared if the people involved choose to share it.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 So who is deciding that gay people want the blessing of the church? Gay people or are people deciding for them? Gay people and straight people should all be able to marry in the same way and same venues. The law currently says gay people do not have the same choices. Hope that's clear.
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Gay people and straight people should all be able to marry in the same way and same venues. The law currently says gay people do not have the same choices. Hope that's clear. or straight people...?
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 So why does it matter that in a civil relationship adultery unfaithfullness fulls under the category of unreasonable behaviour and unlike straight couples they cant divore simply for this? You say yourself that the details are only shared if the people involved choose to share it. It goes to how the law views the relationship. In a civil partnership the words "to the exclusion of all others" or similar are prohibited. That's nuts.
patred44 Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 They can do what they like, but not in my backyard, nor my Church..
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 There are some people in society who look to move established institutions into the 21st century, be those institutions ones that deal with faith, education, health etc. etc. If we hadn't had such movers and shakers in the past, children would still be working in factories and up chimneys, women would be treated as lesser mortals (cue mysoginist 'jokes') and poor people wouldn't be enfranchised. I have a relative who is a Catholic priest - he favours same sex marriage and posits very liberal views. Not all clergy are dinosaurs. I'm not quite sure how a gay person wanting the blessing a religion they claim to be part of but doesn't follow and doesn't approve of them is quite the same as sending a child up a chimney but hey ho.
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Gay people and straight people should all be able to marry in the same way and same venues. The law currently says gay people do not have the same choices. Hope that's clear. Please tell me about straight people wanting a civil partnership. How do they go about this? What are their choices?
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Please tell me about straight people wanting a civil partnership. How do they go about this? What are their choices? they do not matter....clearly
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 or straight people...? Meaning? If you're referring to straight people not being able to enter civil partnership, please remember that civil partnership was not introduced as an alternative to marriage, but a slightly different version for gay people.
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Meaning? If you're referring to straight people not being able to enter civil partnership, please remember that civil partnership was not introduced as an alternative to marriage, but a slightly different version for gay people. but its not fair....I am not religious..so would not want a church wedding...and I like the term civil partnership...sounds formal....but I cant have one..that is just not fair is it.....
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 It goes to how the law views the relationship. In a civil partnership the words "to the exclusion of all others" or similar are prohibited. That's nuts. So one of the key reasons why gay people should be allowed to marry in a church is a technicality around the wording used? Why not just legalise the wording? They can be divorced for unfaithfullness just like a straight couple. Who is demanding all this change anyway, is it gay people themselves, the government or the churches?
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 they do not matter....clearly They have marriage. If gay people get proper marriage they will lose civil partnership. Same for all.
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 but its not fair....I am not religious..so would not want a church wedding...and I like the term civil partnership...sounds formal....but I cant have one..that is just not fair is it..... But you can get married in a Register Office if you don't want a religious ceremony.
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 They have marriage. If gay people get proper marriage they will lose civil partnership. Same for all. they have marriage but no civil partnership...I CANNOT believe you have the utter neck to claim you want same for all...yet say one group have one thing so that is that...I may want a civil partnership..that is not fair...surely...? total and utter hypocrit
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 But you can get married in a Register Office if you don't want a religious ceremony. but I want a civil partnerhip...after all....same for all..right.. surely you would agree..?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 They have marriage. If gay people get proper marriage they will lose civil partnership. Same for all. What if a straight couple want a civil partnership? How do they go about it? WHat are their choices?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 But you can get married in a Register Office if you don't want a religious ceremony. What if you want a civil partnership? Surely you would agree straight people should be permitted this if they want?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 and I still want to know who views civil partnerships as lesser relationships. Other than some bizarre technicality on the wording allowed to use in law no one has come up with any examples of who does or why they are.
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 but I want a civil partnerhip...after all....same for all..right.. surely you would agree..? If everyone had the same right to a marriage no-one would need a civil partnership. It's the fact that same sex couples don't have the same rights that is being debated. What advantage would a civil partnership bring to you and your partner?
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 So one of the key reasons why gay people should be allowed to marry in a church is a technicality around the wording used? Why not just legalise the wording? They can be divorced for unfaithfullness just like a straight couple. Who is demanding all this change anyway, is it gay people themselves, the government or the churches? No, wording is irrelevant. Status and equality are. When gay marriage was discussed there was consultation. I'm a member of resolution, a body for family and divorce lawyers. We were part of the consultation. We proposed a simple amendment to the marriage act to allow gays is straights to marry in the same way. The signs were that would happen but the church vetoed it on the basis that monogamy and exclusivity should only apply to straight couples.
egg Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 If everyone had the same right to a marriage no-one would need a civil partnership. It's the fact that same sex couples don't have the same rights that is being debated. What advantage would a civil partnership bring to you and your partner? The voice of reason.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 Really? are you speaking for them Andy? You know this the case do you? You are totally correct in your inference that we can't blanket label. However, I know this to be the case for some gay Christians.
Thedelldays Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 If everyone had the same right to a marriage no-one would need a civil partnership. It's the fact that same sex couples don't have the same rights that is being debated. What advantage would a civil partnership bring to you and your partner? ok...in the real world...do you agree that I should be given the right to choose if I wanted a civil partnership....the wording is different apparently....if you quest for same for all...? yes or no..should I be afforded that right..?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 If everyone had the same right to a marriage no-one would need a civil partnership. It's the fact that same sex couples don't have the same rights that is being debated. What advantage would a civil partnership bring to you and your partner? And neither do straight people. Straight people cant have a right to a civil partnership. What advantages do gay couples have from getting married rather than being in a civil partnership, other than if they were to split up later due to one of them cheating it's classed as unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery of course. Why dont gay people celebrate civil partnerships as being exclusive to them? Why do they need to be married?
Turkish Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 No, wording is irrelevant. Status and equality are. When gay marriage was discussed there was consultation. I'm a member of resolution, a body for family and divorce lawyers. We were part of the consultation. We proposed a simple amendment to the marriage act to allow gays is straights to marry in the same way. The signs were that would happen but the church vetoed it on the basis that monogamy and exclusivity should only apply to straight couples. So the church didn't approve. So why would a gay couple want the blessing of a religion they didn't follow properly and didn't approve of them?
Saintandy666 Posted 10 December, 2012 Posted 10 December, 2012 And neither do straight people. Straight people cant have a right to a civil partnership. What advantages do gay couples have from getting married rather than being in a civil partnership, other than if they were to split up later due to one of them cheating it's classed as unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery of course. Why dont gay people celebrate civil partnerships as being exclusive to them? Why do they need to be married? I think you are looking at this too literally and objectively. Human's are quite subjective and really this whole debate is about the symbolism of marriage, which is something that homosexuals have a right to be able to share with heterosexuals if they so wish.
.thumb.jpg.29e38131fa8680ec93d955d1d4052a3d.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now