[Neda_Turk]

Originally Posted by kimindex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...age?CMP=twt_gu

John Sentamu's latest piece of double-speak:

All that is, is a classic strawman argument. He has nothing to counter the actual main argument and so invents ridiculous extremes that he can then knock down. People who use them then think that they have proved that black is in fact white, when really haven't at all.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

The head-line is misleading as it will benefit people
Plus he claims to be about equality and justice yet shows a lack of either
if there is only one race then why justify discrimination over sexuality?
Marriage has been redefined before - to exclude same-sex couples so shouldn't he be on the non-homophobic side?

Indeed. It may be just me but his article doesn't seem to make much sense.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Neda_Turk

All that is, is a classic strawman argument. He has nothing to counter the actual main argument and so invents ridiculous extremes that he can then knock down. People who use them then think that they have proved that black is in fact white, when really haven't at all.

Yes, hence the often used slippery slope argument. Next, you'll be allowed to marry your pet gerbil!

[jackthom]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Indeed. It may be just me but his article doesn't seem to make much sense.

He's clearly struggled hard to make it sound like a rational argument, however it really isn't.

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by ladymoanalot

Well seems as gay people can now legally adopt, that blows his reasoning clean out of the water, silly git.

They can have children too, just not ones that have both their DNA (yet!). Of course some already have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

The man is just trying to find an excuse.

[Neda_Turk]

Surely in the bigger picture, if they decide in the end that some people are not equal to them, they will have to answer to and for that.

They have just brought in that people can't be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality so where will that leave them? It's like the minimum wage act all over again: A law that everyone has to follow except the Government who can force you to work for nothing.

:rolleyes;

[ladymoanalot]

I do not get the big uproar about gay marriage.

Fair enough they are spouting on about families yadda, yadda but apart from the fact that gay people can now legally adopt, there is a rather large problem of people of all sexualities sleeping around, being promiscuous, making a mockery out of fidelity and marriage (if you believe only in sex after marriage as the church do), spreading diseases and undermining their Christian values, bearing children out of wedlock etc

That to me is far more severe on the foundations of the church, than a couple of people wanting to sign a legal contract, The issues I have mentioned are far more damaging to the churches view of society than civil partnerships (and therefore gay marriage) has ever been.

Yet these politicians and religious leaders seem more determined to concentrate on an issue which is trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[Starpuss]

The reason some people oppose it is that they find the whole idea of gay relationships digusting. Some will say that in private. They just can't comprehend something that revolts them that much being given a legal status. It will be condoning the horror of it all.

Of course they know they can't actually use this as a reason to deny other human being a right they themselves have so that come up with ridiculous arguments like Sentamu has. It makes them look foolish and bigoted. Like BNP people on threads about 'sending them back to where they came from'.

[jackthom]

Originally Posted by jesaya

They can have children too, just not ones that have both their DNA (yet!). Of course some already have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

The man is just trying to find an excuse.

It's only a matter of time and I can hardly wait for the "playing God" responses we'll be hearing then.

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by kimindex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...age?CMP=twt_gu

John Sentamu's latest piece of double-speak:

That's just badly written rubbish.

"For me, racial equality rests on the doctrine that there is only one race – the human race – and any difference of treatment on ethnic grounds is therefore unjustifiable. "

Does he think gay people are not part of the human race?

[Lizzy11268]

Originally Posted by jesaya

That's just badly written rubbish.

"For me, racial equality rests on the doctrine that there is only one race – the human race – and any difference of treatment on ethnic grounds is therefore unjustifiable. "

Does he think gay people are not part of the human race?

I think most anti gay protaganists think they came down from Mars or something.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by jackthom

He's clearly struggled hard to make it sound like a rational argument, however it really isn't.

If he hadn't have written it, I doubt it would have been deemed acceptable for publication.

[The Spoon]

Surely this is all about labels - 'marriage' 'civil partnership' 'cohabiting' etc. rather than the substance?

It is tradition that couples can commit to each other in a binding way, and it is very old human law that the person in the weaker position is protected by that commitment. “Two become one” is the language – two people become one unit – a couple. Society ‘gangs up’ on anybody who lets the other down and that is law.

If two people make that commitment and subsequently want to disentangle themselves - to take what has been 'made one' (finances, property, lives) and make it two again, then there needs to be protection for the person in the more needy or weaker position, especially if there are children. A child is the pinnacle of ‘two becoming one’ and something that cannot be undone, no matter how inconvenient that is.

A few thousand years ago, King Solomon established the ‘welfare principle’ for determining matters affecting children – who's baby had died and who was the mother of the remaining child? It did not matter which woman, as Solomon realised that the paramount welfare of the child determined who the child should be given to – the one who put the child’s needs above her own. People think Solomon used welfare as an indicator of the truth as to parentage, but the story really shows that for thousands of years, good law should concentrate on the best interests of a child – as it would have to if the two women were a civil partnership. Are the issues of civil partnership new? Would calling it ‘marriage’ change those issues?

The law of marriage boils down to the fact that the couple promised to look out for each other without limitation of time and they each relied on that promise. As a promise was relied upon, the person who might be adversely affected by a breach of that promise should be able to get some protection from the consequences of that breach.

A couple do not need to have had children to be prejudiced by that change of heart/circumstances.

The law invented ‘civil partnership’ so that homosexuals could have the same or very similar protection to heterosexuals if they gave those promises to each other. It is registered just like civil marriages and for legal purposes it is accompanied by financial consequences if one person wants to withdraw from that union or it otherwise fails – for the same reasons as heterosexual couples have to take responsibility.

Once civil registration of marriage – ‘Registry Office weddings’ came into being, the religious ceremony (and whatever) all became optional – the marriage is just as binding. Now, civil partnerships are as similarly binding as Registry Office marriages. Personally, I am not sure why the label of ‘marriage’ as opposed to ‘civil partnership’ is so important – as even the divorce forms are dual purpose now – they cover termination of civil partnership as well as divorce – it is just a different tick box.

If ‘marriage’ is only distinguished by religious ceremony, homosexual people who would like a religious ceremony need to work on their own religious community rather than civil society. It must be very distressing to believe that you are loved by (your) God and rejected by the representatives, but that is a religious matter rather than one of law.

Am I missing something?

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by kimindex

If he hadn't have written it, I doubt it would have been deemed acceptable for publication.

Indeed. And this is the man that may well become head of the Anglican Church. Scary.

[Neda_Turk]

Originally Posted by jesaya

They can have children too, just not ones that have both their DNA (yet!). Of course some already have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

The man is just trying to find an excuse.

Yes that is another thing that is totally and always ignored.

Let's simplify it to it's most basic form for the hard of thinking:

In Flat A: Two Gay men live in a nice stable relationship.
In Flat B: Two Lesbian women live in a nice stable relationship.

Now they arrange by whatever means they wish (multiple choice) for sperm and egg to meet.

9 months later out pops children. Rinse and repeat until enough children are born to meet their wishes, just like anyone else.

Now some of the children can live with their biological Father in Flat A and some can live with their biological Mother in Flat B.

Both couples then have children in stable loving relationships.
And the human race continues!

So simple, it hardly needs explaining. But it would appear to some that is does need explaining.

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Indeed. It may be just me but his article doesn't seem to make much sense.

It doesn't make much sense to anyone who isn't homophobic or who has a functioning brain-cell
If his nonsense was about blacks or women then he would be laughed at and it wouldn't have been published
It's just cos of who he is that that garbage gets published

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by jesaya

Indeed. And this is the man that may well become head of the Anglican Church. Scary.

Not that scary
One homophobic idiot replacing sell-out homophobic idiot, the benefit is that people like him do more to destroy the reputation of the church then anyone outside of the church could

[Lizzy11268]

Originally Posted by jesaya

Indeed. And this is the man that may well become head of the Anglican Church. Scary.

Not that scary. Religion isnt quite as powerful as it thinks it is these days.

Does anyone actually believe that the gay marriage law as it stands with the religious exception is NOT going to be passed?

They can spout their nonsense all they like. Out here in the real world we are moving on.

[ishina]

Originally Posted by ladymoanalot

Yet these politicians and religious leaders seem more determined to concentrate on an issue which is trivial in the grand scheme of things.

There is a surprising number of people who oppose homosexuality. The political opportunist can flirt with and court that demographic, appealing to their prejudices, keeping them ignorant and stirred-up, instilling confidence in them that he is the right election choice, to seize local power. Appealing to prejudice is probably the most sure-fire way to get votes.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by jesaya

Indeed. And this is the man that may well become head of the Anglican Church. Scary.

Is it more or less inevitable?

[Neda_Turk]

Originally Posted by The Spoon

Surely this is all about labels - 'marriage' 'civil partnership' 'cohabiting' etc. rather than the substance?

[snip]

What it is about is equality. Simple as that.

Why should one set of people only be allowed something that is denied to others based on sexuality?

That is discrimination and they have only just brought in a law that says that you can't do that.

That's it in a nutshell and no other argument applies really.

The rest is just people who don't want gay people treated as equal to them and think that they should be treated as less than them, making up reasons why this should be so. Most arguments being based around a dusty old book that they base their lives on and think that everyone else should be force to so as well,

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by The Spoon

Surely this is all about labels - 'marriage' 'civil partnership' 'cohabiting' etc. rather than the substance?


Am I missing something?

<snip for space>

If heterosexual and gay marriage is the same, then there won't be a problem with calling it the same. Otherwise, there's unnecessary differentiation.

[Neda_Turk]

Originally Posted by kimindex

<snip for space>

If heterosexual and gay marriage is the same, then there won't be a problem with calling it the same. Otherwise, there's unnecessary differentiation.

Bonus point for getting a word like "differentiation" into a post!

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Neda_Turk

Bonus point for getting a word like "differentiation" into a post!

My first!

[jesaya]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Is it more or less inevitable?

Depends on the council who select the AoC. The Archbishop of Wales has been asked to join, which is a good thing as he supports equal marriage and other liberal ideas, however the rest of the council I am not so sure of.

It would matter less of course if the Anglican's didn't have a direct say in legislation. People forget that the original proposals that led to Civil Partnerships were actually to amend the Marriage Act and these were changed as a sop to the Bishops and right wing MPs.