I already said this but without the eye roll about the odd things people believe.
I think it's better to have the decency to not call them silly, even if religious people sometimes don't do the same about 'silly' science.
Is this an ironic comment given that you insult people's beliefs twice in one post while admonishing me for doing the same?
What have I insulted exactly?
Which post are you talking about.
Whats relevant is that I've answered the thread question. If gay people want to get married in civil ceremonies let them but if religions are forced to conduct the ceremonies as well, that will be the problem and I'm sure people could have worked that out for themselves if they thought about it.
What have I insulted exactly?
Which post are you talking about.
In the post I quote you referred to the odd things people believe and that we shouldn't call them silly implying of course that they are silly but we just shouldn't point that out to them.
Whats relevant is that I've answered the thread question. If gay people want to get married in civil ceremonies let them but if religions are forced to conduct the ceremonies as well, that will be the problem and I'm sure people could have worked that out for themselves if they thought about it.
But what evidence do you have that religions are going to be forced to do anything whatsoever, they never have before?
Whats relevant is that I've answered the thread question. If gay people want to get married in civil ceremonies let them but if religions are forced to conduct the ceremonies as well, that will be the problem and I'm sure people could have worked that out for themselves if they thought about it.
So even you realise that there is no real, logical objection to this law coming in given that there is no precedence of religions losing challeneges against their policy towards women, gay people and divorcees in European courts. That's progress at least.
In the post I quote you referred to the odd things people believe and that we shouldn't call them silly implying of course that they are silly but we just shouldn't point that out to them.
It wasn't my intention to imply that, I was saying your eye rolling was because you thought it was an odd belief.
Of course everyone has odd (as in different) beliefs compared to others.
You can discuss them without mocking them and being disrespectful. That's all I was saying really. You lose the moral high ground, and it won't go anywhere. And yes I think calling the Big Bang silly is being disrespectful.
But what evidence do you have that religions are going to be forced to do anything whatsoever, they never have before?
I've heard people call for it on radio phone in shows for a start and one presenter saying if it was up to him, he would force religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Do you really think the pressure won't come further? I think you are in denial or naive on this issue if you do.
I'm afraid I don't see anything valid about denying equal treatment to people because of their sexual orientation. Or about trying to inflict anachronistic religious beliefs on others.
Although as I have said European Court aside, I have no real objection, I can see the other point of view too. I would not discriminate against two married gay men, but I also would not deep down see them as married. That's just my age I guess. I have no objection to them having the same rights etc, which a I feel they already do within the UK with civil partnerships. I really think this is all about a word.
I've heard people call for it on radio phone in shows for a start and one presenter saying if it was up to him, he would force religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Do you really think the pressure won't come further? I think you are in denial or naive on this issue if you do.
So in other words, you've heard practically no one calling for it and no organised movement calling for it. I once heard a few clueless football fans calling for United to sack Alex Ferguson but that doesn't mean that it'll ever happen.
I've heard people call for it on radio phone in shows for a start and one presenter saying if it was up to him, he would force religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Do you really think the pressure won't come further? I think you are in denial or naive on this issue if you do.
Nothing in your first paragraph suggests to me that there is any real desire to force religions to do anything they don't want to.
As I've already said we have nearly 12 years of precedence whereby no gay activist has attempted to take a church to court to force it to conduct a marriage ceremony which goes against its beliefs. We have 40 years of precedence in this country that church opt outs from equality laws are accepted by the general populace and not subject to legal challenge.
So no I don't think that there will be any further pressure. And I think you are paranoid on this issue if you believe it will.
So even you realise that there is no real, logical objection to this law coming in given that there is no precedence of religions losing challeneges against their policy towards women, gay people and divorcees in European courts. That's progress at least.
Its not something I would agree with per se because of my religious beliefs, nothing else, no matter what people might want to think.
There are other things that have been passed by Governments that religions/religious people will not agree with such as abortion except for in exceptional circumstances, so what I am saying is that if Governments pass this into a civil marriage process go ahead even though I don't agree with it per se because of the reason already outlined, but don't expect and or force religions to conduct the ceremonies or as good as expect a re-write of the religions to allow it. To do so would make a complete mockery of religion.
Nothing in your first paragraph suggests to me that there is any real desire to force religions to do anything they don't want to.
As I've already said we have nearly 12 years of precedence whereby no gay activist has attempted to take a church to court to force it to conduct a marriage ceremony which goes against its beliefs. We have 40 years of precedence in this country that church opt outs from equality laws are accepted by the general populace and not subject to legal challenge.
So no I don't think that there will be any further pressure. And I think you are paranoid on this issue if you believe it will.
Seeing that previous pressure from lobbying has seen the age of consent come down from 21 to 18 then 16 and then Civil ceremonies coming in and Jack Straw as the then Minister in charge of passing the law said it wouldn't lead to Gay marriage, I will not hold my breath that there won't be pressure to force religions to conduct the ceremonies as well.
Having said that, it was David Cameron who decided to do this and not so much lobbying before on this when he suddenly and unexpectedly dropped it into his speech at the Tory party confrence of 2011 I think it was, but like I alluded to earlier, I suspect its part of his calculations to try and score brownie points and get more votes but he should think about the votes he might well lose as well.
Seeing that previous pressure from lobbying has seen the age of consent come down from 21 to 18 then 16
No the age of consent has been 16 for a while the only difference is it has been equalised for everyone.
The sheer fact you don't see this as a good thing say it all.
Seeing that previous pressure from lobbying has seen the age of consent come down from 21 to 18 then 16 and then Civil ceremonies coming in and Jack Straw as the then Minister in charge of passing the law said it wouldn't lead to Gay marriage, I will not hold my breath that there won't be pressure to force religions to conduct the ceremonies as well.
Having said that, it was David Cameron who decided to do this and not so much lobbying before on this when he suddenly and unexpectedly dropped it into his speech at the Tory party confrence of 2011 I think it was, but like I alluded to earlier, I suspect its part of his calculations to try and score brownie points and get more votes but he should think about the votes he might well lose as well.
The reduction in the age of consent was to bring about equality under the law for two males since heterosexuals had been able to have sex at 16 for many years. The reason it took two attempts was because the Tories refused to equalise things at 16 back in the early 90s.
I'll need a source reference for Jack Straw but I would point out that Jack Straw doesn't speak for the gay community, that nothing Jack Straw says binds anyone to anything except possibly Jack Straw and given that he wasn't home secretary at the time but rather foreign secretary it seems bizarre that he would have anything to do with Civil Partnerships.
But again, where are the cases of women taking the Catholic Church to court, or divorcees? Why do you think gay people are out to get the churches when women haven't done the same since the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975? I'm really at a loss.
Its not something I would agree with per se because of my religious beliefs, nothing else, no matter what people might want to think.
People are pushing for the right of their own religions to perform legally recognised same sex unions because of the right to religious freedom. The objection to and legal ban on the CoE and CoW is that it restricts them should they at some point in the future decide to exercise the same religious freedom as other religious denominations seem set on gaining. Your argument seems to be that a change in law that will remove an existing restriction on the religious freedom of some faiths will potentially restrict that of your particular faith.
In short you pretend to argue on the basis of freedom of worship despite the self evident fact that your intent is to continue the imposition of the restrictions placed on human relations imposed by your particular interpretation of your religion on others who do not follow that particular path.
OK, if your previous post was serious I will say this: Even though I beleive in god, I am not an expert on religion, I don't know all the inns and outs, I don't have enough time to go through all the history of it, though I do plan on learning a lot more on religion generally, one of the main reasons why, is so I can rebutt things as much as I can on politics which I do know a lot on.
WhatI would emphasise to you is that religions are a faith. Also there are somethings we are incapable of comprehending, I'm sure its in religion that we don't have the ability to comprehend what god looks like and I wouldn't be surprised if this extrends to how "he" built/made the earth and how "he" came about in the first place, hence faith.
Whats relevant is that I've answered the thread question. If gay people want to get married in civil ceremonies let them but if religions are forced to conduct the ceremonies as well, that will be the problem and I'm sure people could have worked that out for themselves if they thought about it.
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. Marrage is between a man and a woman.
Sorry I don't want to hurt gay people but I know I have just done that.
Kids should also be brought up with a Dad and Mum
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. Marrage is between a man and a woman.
Sorry I don't want to hurt gay people but I know I have just done that.
Kids should also be brought up with a Dad and Mum
What do we do about the children who have lost parents in some way ?
No the age of consent has been 16 for a while the only difference is it has been equalised for everyone.
The sheer fact you don't see this as a good thing say it all.
I myself don't think its right to bugger 16 year old boys but I know I am behind the times.
VERY SAD
Although as I have said European Court aside, I have no real objection, I can see the other point of view too. I would not discriminate against two married gay men, but I also would not deep down see them as married. That's just my age I guess. I have no objection to them having the same rights etc, which a I feel they already do within the UK with civil partnerships. I really think this is all about a word.
Comments
You ask "the questions" and really expect answers with "questions like that"? :rolleyes: Thought it was a waste of time.
Is this an ironic comment given that you insult people's beliefs twice in one post while admonishing me for doing the same?
What have I insulted exactly?
Which post are you talking about.
Whats relevant is that I've answered the thread question. If gay people want to get married in civil ceremonies let them but if religions are forced to conduct the ceremonies as well, that will be the problem and I'm sure people could have worked that out for themselves if they thought about it.
In the post I quote you referred to the odd things people believe and that we shouldn't call them silly implying of course that they are silly but we just shouldn't point that out to them.
But what evidence do you have that religions are going to be forced to do anything whatsoever, they never have before?
So even you realise that there is no real, logical objection to this law coming in given that there is no precedence of religions losing challeneges against their policy towards women, gay people and divorcees in European courts. That's progress at least.
It wasn't my intention to imply that, I was saying your eye rolling was because you thought it was an odd belief.
Of course everyone has odd (as in different) beliefs compared to others.
You can discuss them without mocking them and being disrespectful. That's all I was saying really. You lose the moral high ground, and it won't go anywhere. And yes I think calling the Big Bang silly is being disrespectful.
I've heard people call for it on radio phone in shows for a start and one presenter saying if it was up to him, he would force religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Do you really think the pressure won't come further? I think you are in denial or naive on this issue if you do.
Although as I have said European Court aside, I have no real objection, I can see the other point of view too. I would not discriminate against two married gay men, but I also would not deep down see them as married. That's just my age I guess. I have no objection to them having the same rights etc, which a I feel they already do within the UK with civil partnerships. I really think this is all about a word.
So in other words, you've heard practically no one calling for it and no organised movement calling for it. I once heard a few clueless football fans calling for United to sack Alex Ferguson but that doesn't mean that it'll ever happen.
Nothing in your first paragraph suggests to me that there is any real desire to force religions to do anything they don't want to.
As I've already said we have nearly 12 years of precedence whereby no gay activist has attempted to take a church to court to force it to conduct a marriage ceremony which goes against its beliefs. We have 40 years of precedence in this country that church opt outs from equality laws are accepted by the general populace and not subject to legal challenge.
So no I don't think that there will be any further pressure. And I think you are paranoid on this issue if you believe it will.
Its not something I would agree with per se because of my religious beliefs, nothing else, no matter what people might want to think.
There are other things that have been passed by Governments that religions/religious people will not agree with such as abortion except for in exceptional circumstances, so what I am saying is that if Governments pass this into a civil marriage process go ahead even though I don't agree with it per se because of the reason already outlined, but don't expect and or force religions to conduct the ceremonies or as good as expect a re-write of the religions to allow it. To do so would make a complete mockery of religion.
Seeing that previous pressure from lobbying has seen the age of consent come down from 21 to 18 then 16 and then Civil ceremonies coming in and Jack Straw as the then Minister in charge of passing the law said it wouldn't lead to Gay marriage, I will not hold my breath that there won't be pressure to force religions to conduct the ceremonies as well.
Having said that, it was David Cameron who decided to do this and not so much lobbying before on this when he suddenly and unexpectedly dropped it into his speech at the Tory party confrence of 2011 I think it was, but like I alluded to earlier, I suspect its part of his calculations to try and score brownie points and get more votes but he should think about the votes he might well lose as well.
No the age of consent has been 16 for a while the only difference is it has been equalised for everyone.
The sheer fact you don't see this as a good thing say it all.
The reduction in the age of consent was to bring about equality under the law for two males since heterosexuals had been able to have sex at 16 for many years. The reason it took two attempts was because the Tories refused to equalise things at 16 back in the early 90s.
I'll need a source reference for Jack Straw but I would point out that Jack Straw doesn't speak for the gay community, that nothing Jack Straw says binds anyone to anything except possibly Jack Straw and given that he wasn't home secretary at the time but rather foreign secretary it seems bizarre that he would have anything to do with Civil Partnerships.
But again, where are the cases of women taking the Catholic Church to court, or divorcees? Why do you think gay people are out to get the churches when women haven't done the same since the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975? I'm really at a loss.
People are pushing for the right of their own religions to perform legally recognised same sex unions because of the right to religious freedom. The objection to and legal ban on the CoE and CoW is that it restricts them should they at some point in the future decide to exercise the same religious freedom as other religious denominations seem set on gaining. Your argument seems to be that a change in law that will remove an existing restriction on the religious freedom of some faiths will potentially restrict that of your particular faith.
In short you pretend to argue on the basis of freedom of worship despite the self evident fact that your intent is to continue the imposition of the restrictions placed on human relations imposed by your particular interpretation of your religion on others who do not follow that particular path.
OK, if your previous post was serious I will say this: Even though I beleive in god, I am not an expert on religion, I don't know all the inns and outs, I don't have enough time to go through all the history of it, though I do plan on learning a lot more on religion generally, one of the main reasons why, is so I can rebutt things as much as I can on politics which I do know a lot on.
WhatI would emphasise to you is that religions are a faith. Also there are somethings we are incapable of comprehending, I'm sure its in religion that we don't have the ability to comprehend what god looks like and I wouldn't be surprised if this extrends to how "he" built/made the earth and how "he" came about in the first place, hence faith.
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. Marrage is between a man and a woman.
Sorry I don't want to hurt gay people but I know I have just done that.
Kids should also be brought up with a Dad and Mum
What do we do about the children who have lost parents in some way ?
I myself don't think its right to bugger 16 year old boys but I know I am behind the times.
VERY SAD
I agree.Its all about a word.
Who is buggering 16 Year old boys ?