[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

There are quite a few actually. You dont have to have sex ever in a cp.
There's a spreadsheet knocking about but mainly to do with domestic and step parent rights. The saddest one has to do wih them unable to have a 'family home' only a shared residence in law. That's just another matter of definitions though isnt it.

Ahh ok that makes more sense. Pretty brutal. Why not just re-work the civil partnership laws and afford more rights to civil partnerships, rather than trying to convince the church to stop doing what they do best, being bigots?

[epicurian]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

Meh I guess you weren't to know, we all make mistakes.



I was being flippant, and can somewhat get away with it anyway due to actually being a pretty cool 'dude'.

Nah, you just forgot you said it. Put down the blunt, Jeffery, I think it's making you paranoid.

[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by epicurian

Nah, you just forgot you said it. Put down the blunt, Jeffery, I think it's making you paranoid.

Hardly, dude. I say dude all the time. I know fine well what I said, I was just being deliberately antagonising towards you.

I haven't smoked 'blunt'(seriously dude, blunt, really?) in years. Random drug tests are a part of my job.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

Ahh ok that makes more sense. Pretty brutal. Why not just re-work the civil partnership laws and afford more rights to civil partnerships, rather than trying to convince the church to stop doing what they do best, being bigots?

It wouldn't matter if they were exactly the same. The church doesnt own marriage and atheists may marry. What matters is gay people can't get married or have their marriages recognised here.

[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

It wouldn't matter if they were exactly the same. The church doesnt own marriage and atheists may marry. What matters is gay people can't get married or have their marriages recognised here.

But if the rights afforded were the same, why would you even need to get married?

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

But if the rights afforded were the same, why would you even need to get married?

To be equal... plus some do want a church service in a gay friendly church.
Why have two things that are identical but different names. What is the need to sepperate gay people from marriage, how will it harm anything.

This might song petty but marriage is an institution. what is a civil partnership? it sounds like a handshake. Means nothing to me.

[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

To be equal... plus some do want a church service in a gay friendly church.
Why have two things that are identical but different names.

Is there such a thing as a gay friendly church? Genuine question, have no idea.

If there is then sure, why not allow marriages there, seems ridiculous not to.

It seems like swimming upstream though to try and force the church to compromise their own religious beliefs(however archaic) for a section of society they outwardly oppose. In fact are there not laws to protect religious belief in this way?

[ishina]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

Tell me, what's the difference legally, if any, between civil partnership and gay marriage?

Depends where you are in the world. In Ireland, for example, there are all kinds of differences; hospital visitation rights and advance medical directives, adoption rights, property rights, insurance, tax, loans, legal aid, benefits and social security, immigration complications, and on and on. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZU-HQ_c8bg

See also: http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinf...ingpieces.html

And lets not even start about USA, where they have atrocious discriminatory and defunct laws with regards to same-sex unions.

[ishina]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

So why all the fuss about getting married in a church?

Well, some churches do actually want to have the option of performing non-discriminatory legal unions, for a start.

[ninjahandfriend]

This thread has totally astounded me. I honestly never realised that there are people out there who pay attention to Rupert Everett.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

Is there such a thing as a gay friendly church? Genuine question, have no idea.

If there is then sure, why not allow marriages there, seems ridiculous not to.

It seems like swimming upstream though to try and force the church to compromise their own religious beliefs(however archaic) for a section of society they outwardly oppose. In fact are there not laws to protect religious belief in this way?

Mainly Quakers and Universal Unitarans. Yes it is ridiculous.
No one is asking churches to do anything and they can still stop women getting any responsibilities in the church or divorced people marrying so it's not a problem.
Gay civil marriage would be a start.

[epicurian]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

Is there such a thing as a gay friendly church? Genuine question, have no idea.

If there is then sure, why not allow marriages there, seems ridiculous not to.

It seems like swimming upstream though to try and force the church to compromise their own religious beliefs(however archaic) for a section of society they outwardly oppose. In fact are there not laws to protect religious belief in this way?

According to the government, no religious institution would be forced to marry gay couples, but Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews, who welcome equal marriage, would be permitted to.

[Hogzilla]

Is his career flagging, or summat?

[gavinfarrelly]

Originally Posted by epicurian

According to the government, no religious institution would be forced to marry gay couples, but Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews, who welcome equal marriage, would be permitted to.

I'm not too sure that this would be true in reality though. If gay marriage was legalised, and a church refused to perform the ceremony, it would be classed as discrimination...and thus the church could be prosecuted as far as I am aware.

Unless they are planning on altering part of the discrimination laws also. Or putting some kind of get out clause in there somewhere.

[ChristmasCake]

Originally Posted by Hogzilla

Is his career flagging, or summat?

He's publishing his memoirs..

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by ishina

Ok, but the first premise was that same-sex parents are worse that heterosexual parents. I've proven that isn't the case. And you, being a smart person, will agree with scientific evidence. Correct?

You're now shifting to the idea that children raised by same-sex couples are at a higher risk of bullying. This is nothing at all to do with the parenting ability of same-sex couples. If this is your basis for not allowing same-sex couples to raise children, your logic is flawed.

I'd also like to see some form of corroborating evidence so I can evaluate exactly how this is a contributing factor and if your point has any merit.

Hey, not so militant if you don't mind.

Firstly, I'm not shifting anything. I said from the start I'm not dogmatic. Some gay couples want a kid for the novelty value - just as many straight couples do. Others are quite capable of being loving, supportive parents.

And yes, I AM concerned about bullying of kids - no shift at all. Of course kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - I just don't think it's fair to place yet another reason upon their shoulders. Finally - I have not said I wouldn't allow same sex couples to raise children - I just said I was uncomfortable with it.

Why don't you actually read what people post before tearing into them?

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by Mr.Beaks

No I mean gays

I have never heard or known any gays to be influenced unlike the bigoted heteros
Thus you are still wrong

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Mainly Quakers and Universal Unitarans. Yes it is ridiculous.
No one is asking churches to do anything and they can still stop women getting any responsibilities in the church or divorced people marrying so it's not a problem.
Gay civil marriage would be a start.

the christians and other homophobes want to force all churches not to marry same-sex couples because of their own religion yet they whine when they get told to obey the law - they are hypocrites

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Hey, not so militant if you don't mind.

Firstly, I'm not shifting anything. I said from the start I'm not dogmatic. Some gay couples want a kid for the novelty value - just as many straight couples do. Others are quite capable of being loving, supportive parents.

And yes, I AM concerned about bullying of kids - no shift at all. Of course kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - I just don't think it's fair to place yet another reason upon their shoulders. Finally - I have not said I wouldn't allow same sex couples to raise children - I just said I was uncomfortable with it.

Why don't you actually read what people post before tearing into them?

kids get born to folk who are into the same sex anyway

kids will be bullied for any and every difference

[Hogzilla]

Originally Posted by ChristmasCake

He's publishing his memoirs..

Ah. Nuff said. We can move along, then - nothing to see here.

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by ChristmasCake

He's publishing his memoirs..

again? I read them about 4 years ago and he's done naff all since then.

[ishina]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Hey, not so militant if you don't mind.

Wow, you're a sensitive soul. If me stating my argument clearly and matter-of-fact is "militant" then maybe a robust discussion about this issue is not something you ought to be concerned with.

Originally Posted by trevgo

And yes, I AM concerned about bullying of kids - no shift at all. Of course kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - I just don't think it's fair to place yet another reason upon their shoulders.

Not fair to the point of denying certain people equal rights? Again, I'd like to see some form of corroborating evidence so I can evaluate exactly how this is a contributing factor and if your point has any merit.

Originally Posted by trevgo

Finally - I have not said I wouldn't allow same sex couples to raise children - I just said I was uncomfortable with it.

Why don't you actually read what people post before tearing into them?

Ok, 'uncomfortable with' then. My point still stands.

[ninjahandfriend]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

I read them about 4 years ago.

Shame on you.

[Mr.Beaks]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

I have never heard or known any gays to be influenced unlike the bigoted heteros
Thus you are still wrong

lol, wow.

I think you heave a reading comprehension as well as an attitude problem.

Who are these bigoted heteros of which you speak and how did they enter this discussion?

[ChristmasCake]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Hey, not so militant if you don't mind.

Firstly, I'm not shifting anything. I said from the start I'm not dogmatic. Some gay couples want a kid for the novelty value - just as many straight couples do. Others are quite capable of being loving, supportive parents.

And yes, I AM concerned about bullying of kids - no shift at all. Of course kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - I just don't think it's fair to place yet another reason upon their shoulders. Finally - I have not said I wouldn't allow same sex couples to raise children - I just said I was uncomfortable with it.

Why don't you actually read what people post before tearing into them?

Out of interest what percentage of kids with parents who identify as lgbt do get bullied based on that fact?