
anyone here who lives in Scotland, please take the time to make your voice heard on this issue. The Catholic Church and their homoskeptic allies are apparently very much ahead in the polls at the moment.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:32, Reply)

But i totally support the right of gay ppl to marry. Those that oppose to it are always fuelled by religion or bullshit. Have u ever heard a single reasonable and factual reason gays shouldnt marry? Me neither. Let them do as they please.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:35, Reply)

Incidentally I got sent this link by my church minister, there are a number of religious groups who are currently frustrated that they are not legally allowed to conduct civil partnerships, even though they'd be happy to.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:40, Reply)

If you don't like gay marriage, stop trying to marry a gay man
Why shouldn't they get married? Gay people have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:40, Reply)

you'd think the Catholics would be all for it.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:08, Reply)

I've got a pair of fishing waders and a maggie thatcher mask in the cupboard waiting to do that for me
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:11, Reply)

can't remember if he was quoting someone else.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:19, Reply)

makes me think: the same politicians in the US who want the government to meddle less with people's lives (less tax, less healthcare, fewer benefits, freedom to shoot your neighbour in the face with a concealed machine gun, etc) seem incredibly interested in what people do with their penises and vaginas.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:07, Reply)

but there would be no sex - just like conventional marriages (to retell the same joke as earlier).
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 8:05, Reply)

why do people want to be seen as married in this very specific sense?
What benefit is there in having a made up union in the eyes of a homophobic lord whose minions are as corrupt and kiddy fiddling as the media makes out.
If it's just about the paperwork/benefits surely a better campaign would be to completely remove all legal rights from such crazy religious traditions.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:39, Reply)

A civil service in a registry office is still a marriage.
And not all religions are homophobic.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:41, Reply)

It's not the same institution as marriage, it just conveys similar rights.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:49, Reply)

why would you want to go the very specific route and marry in a church that generally stands against what you believe in?
I've never understood the whole church thing. If two people want to be together, what business is it of religion?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:57, Reply)

The points are:
1. they can't even get a civil partnership in a church (or any other religious establishment) that ISN'T homophobic, and this is in violation of religious freedom (the Government is almost saying that religions have to be homophobic.)
2. marriage isn't the same thing as civil partnership. It's a separate institution and that's discrimination. (Straight people can't get a civil partnership either) and gay people want to get MARRIED, the same as straight people, Civil Partnerships were a compromise to bigots in the first place.
Personally I'd be happy if marriage was completely deregulated, because to me it's essentially a social thing that I don't think the state should have a say in. But clearly I'm against the grain here because they recently abolished common-law marriage altogether.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:03, Reply)

but someone always has to have a go.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:06, Reply)

not all churches are full of rabidly homophobic kiddie fiddlers.
I know quite a number of openly gay christians, who worship at churches that support them and their relationships - who would dearly love to celebrate their love for each other in a church with all their friends and family.
Currently the closest you can get to that is a civil ceremony followed by a blessing in the church - which doesn't really feel the same does it.
What *I* don't get is how some churches can be so vocal about "your church shouldn't be allowed to marry poofs, because if you are we'll have to do it too and we don't want to!"
I truly don't follow that train of thought at all.
disclosure: I'm a massive poof, but am ignostic
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:04, Reply)

that would just be pointless. That's a separate question on the form, anyway.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:10, Reply)

it seems odd to me that people can't see that worshipping a god that according to the religion's own scripture would condemn you for your behaviour is counter-intuitive.
to be fair though, most people would be condemned to hell if they were to take the whole bible seriously. it seems that the majority of religious people are very selective about which bits of the book they take notice of
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:17, Reply)

my own (Unitarian) church doesn't even insist that the Bible is the word of God; I don't know what the Quaker's stance on scripture is but I know they're backing this, as well as the Liberal Jews.
I shouldn't need to point out that the Bible is very much open to interpretation. I actually quoted 1 Corinthians 7:9 on the form.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:22, Reply)

but if your religion uses the bible and it's concepts as it's base, but doesn't actually believe what it says is actually true, what's the fucking point of that?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:32, Reply)

The point is though that not every religion does, and it's no business of the state if it does or not.
BUT ask any Rabbi, Liberal or otherwise, and they'll tell you that Leviticus prohibits bumsex, not Special Best Friends Forever.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:34, Reply)

There's also the concept of continuous revelation however this is not something I ascribe to.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 2:37, Reply)

lucky no-one stakes their chance for immortality or base their entire life around it then eh?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:41, Reply)

bah!
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:48, Reply)

well quite. I don't know what goes through their minds to be honest but I don't think the government should be pandering to it. Which is why I put my tuppenceworth on that there form.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:50, Reply)

If you say that the bible is "very much open to interpretation" then you're saying that it isn't clear about its message. And if the bible isn't clear about what it's saying, why on earth would you base your life around it?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:03, Reply)

According to Rudolph Bultmann, all you need to believe in to be a Christian is Christ crucified. I think it's fairly clear on at least that much.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:15, Reply)

Not sure which, but I hope for your sake you just don't like confrontation.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:19, Reply)

and not one I really want right now.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:21, Reply)

Glad you're more secure in your religion than you first appear.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:23, Reply)

"the religion itself is homophobic" - only to the same inherent level as it being anti beard shaving, or pro-slavery.
I repeat, I'm not christian I'm ignostic. I'm also pro-choice when it comes to churches.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:24, Reply)

have I misunderstood, or are you saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry in a church because the men at that church don't have beards?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:42, Reply)

gays should have the same rights as anyone to do whatever the fuck they like. and religion is stupid
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:47, Reply)

Civil partnership is hardly the most romantic sounding concept. Besides, simply the fact that gay marriage is not allowed conveys a lower status upon homosexual relationships, even if it is only on a symbolic level
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:15, Reply)

if you're married and you get a sex change, BANG and the marriage is gone. Doesn't matter if you still love each other.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:24, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris
Marriage and then later a civil partnership with the same person
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:31, Reply)

which is optional. But by the same token it means a transexual woman has to get the Gender Recognition Certificate if she wants to marry a man.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:44, Reply)

It's state-sponsored segregation, marking out gay couples' relationships as 'different'
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:26, Reply)

Do you agree that gay marriage is OK because that lovely Elton chap is very nice isn't he, whereas those Catholics are a bit mean (that Ratzinger fella was in the SS, you know)?
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 21:44, Reply)

I think there is an inherent problem with asking for the right to have religious same sex marriage. Many religious people still hear "we're going to force your religion to conduct same sex marriage".
I personally believe that countries like France and Turkey have an excellent system whereby *only* the state ceremony is the legally binding one. The religious institutions there have no power to perform legal marriage, meaning you avoid this entire political palaver in the first place.
In those countries (along with Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain, Argentina), people must be married by a registrar first, and then they can have all the religious la-de-da that they want.
Take legal marriage away from the religions. THAT would be marriage equality.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:01, Reply)

frankly they brought it on themselves, originally marriages didn't have to be registered with the state at all (no more so than any other sort of legally-binding contract), until The Roman Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Roman Catholic priest.
I'm all for returning to the original model.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:13, Reply)

The practical side of me sees legal issues.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:40, Reply)

The government really haven't thought this one through. They want to stimulate the economy? Can you imagine what would happen to the wedding present industry if they allowed gay marriage?
cheers
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:14, Reply)

Then again, my pocket change is worth more than some UK banks at the moment...
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:03, Reply)

Only couple I've met that are trying for that, but I wonder if it'll become more popular in the coming years.
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:24, Reply)

Most of them just invite SOME of their internet friends and completely ignore others......
*shoots snidey look at Tabby's back while he clicks his cuban heels and downs another cocktail*
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:34, Reply)

you might trip up and take another bite out of the kerb ;-)
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 22:47, Reply)

HANG ON! Actually, go on then
*sniffs and lubes*
( , Mon 21 Nov 2011, 23:34, Reply)

Not being sarcy, genuinely interested.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:11, Reply)

Only mixed-sex couples can currently get married. Only same-sex couples can currently get a civil partnership. The two things are supposed to convey the same rights (so we are told) but the fact that they are still legally separate institutions leads to certain technicalities.
"Marriage" doesn't mean "religious". A registry office marriage is legally the same thing as a marriage conducted in a church.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:18, Reply)

You answered my question anyway though! Thank you. =D
I read once that in France opposite sex couples were joining in civil partnerships instead of being "married" (all these terms...) as they didn't want marriage but did want the legal benefits of being a couple. I was wondering if that could be done here.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:35, Reply)

I don't know what the socio-religious politics are like in France but I get the impression they've been tending towards generally anti-religious sentiments since the revolution. We don't as a nation have the same culture of separation of church and state as they do. They actually banned Burkas, I don't think that would be possible here. Religious freedom is more our thing.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:45, Reply)

religions are supposed to be against getting drunk (drunkenness is actually listed alongside bumming in its only mention in the New Testament), and yet most religious weddings are followed by an alcohol heavy reception and no religious people ever complain about that.
It is interesting what a big issue homosexuality has become in the church, considering what a small issue it is in the bible. It seems to me like people are led by a group mentality hearsay interpretation of the bible, far more than what it actually says - which obviously makes 'their' faith easy to abuse by bigoted leaders.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:18, Reply)

( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 0:55, Reply)

to anyone wanting to seriously explore the issue of homosexuality and Christianity/ the Bible.
It appears very few times, and when it does it is dubious, for example some of the words currently translated as "homosexual" were previously translated (up until around 40 years ago) as "five knuckle-shufflers".
There is also the idea that a modern, loving, egalitarian homosexual relationship is closer to the sort of intimate friendships enjoyed by, for example, Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David in the Bible, which are celebrated, than to the type of acts the Bible (possibly) describes.
( , Tue 22 Nov 2011, 17:42, Reply)