StarGateWars Forums

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

How barbaric. This will undermine religion, people may die. keep all women and children indoors please.

edit: just on a side note, I love the way the parliament works, just have to crack up everytime i watch that.

GrizzZzzly wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

Excellent!

not against gays or anythign , but why does the goverment have any influence on a religious institution, surely its up to the church of england not the goverment

if your religion doesnt allow you to marry because of your sexual orientation, then maybe you should find another religion

Guild wrote:not against gays or anythign , but why does the goverment have any influence on a religious institution, surely its up to the church of england not the goverment

if your religion doesnt allow you to marry because of your sexual orientation, then maybe you should find another religion

Marriage is no longer just a religious institution. It's a legal contract between two people which provides benefits to citizens whom have entered into the legally binding agreement which is marriage. You don't have to go to a religious institution with a priest/pastor/whatever to be married, a legally recognized judge can ordain the agreement just as well (and it's cheaper).

Had the government never made any legal contract or benefits for couples who happened to be married, people could argue religious rights all they wanted and be completely justified. But that isn't the case anymore. Non religious people get married all the time; if people truly want to claim marriage is a religious institution, where the heck were the protests when the government allowed non-religious authorities to ordain a marriage, or when agnostics started having weddings and getting married.

That argument is no longer valid. Sorry, but it isn't. Marriage can now be defined as a legal contract between two people, and the laws in most western countries prevent discrimination against individuals from having the option to the same rights as others. Equality. No singular character trait, even sexual orientation, should automatically make someone a second-class citizen and prevent them the same rights as their peers.

Well.. the situation with the Church of England is an interesting one, it being a 'State Church'.. ergo politicians (specifically the Queen) do(es) have something to say about religion. I do suppose she can still cancel it all, though.



As for gay marriage.. while I am all for governments allowing it (legally), I am 100% against forcing churches to accept homosexual couples. Asking them to consider, in an open (or internal) debate about dogmas, sure. But forcing any religion to change because of political desires is exactly why Church and State are (generally) separate (except in 'certain' countries). Forcing political decisions on Churches is the same as Churches forcing political decisions on the State. Neither should be tolerated.

I am a fervent Augustinian in that regard. *grin*

Juliette wrote:I am 100% against forcing churches to accept homosexual couples. Asking them to consider, in an open (or internal) debate about dogmas, sure. But forcing any religion to change because of political desires is exactly why Church and State are (generally) separate (except in 'certain' countries). Forcing political decisions on Churches is the same as Churches forcing political decisions on the State. Neither should be tolerated.

Agreed.

Juliette wrote:Well.. the situation with the Church of England is an interesting one, it being a 'State Church'.. ergo politicians (specifically the Queen) do(es) have something to say about religion. I do suppose she can still cancel it all, though.



As for gay marriage.. while I am all for governments allowing it (legally), I am 100% against forcing churches to accept homosexual couples. Asking them to consider, in an open (or internal) debate about dogmas, sure. But forcing any religion to change because of political desires is exactly why Church and State are (generally) separate (except in 'certain' countries). Forcing political decisions on Churches is the same as Churches forcing political decisions on the State. Neither should be tolerated.

I am a fervent Augustinian in that regard. *grin*

Never pictured you a Catholic up in that celestial body of souls Jules? But I agree with the post

Juliette wrote:Well.. the situation with the Church of England is an interesting one, it being a 'State Church'.. ergo politicians (specifically the Queen) do(es) have something to say about religion. I do suppose she can still cancel it all, though.



As for gay marriage.. while I am all for governments allowing it (legally), I am 100% against forcing churches to accept homosexual couples. Asking them to consider, in an open (or internal) debate about dogmas, sure. But forcing any religion to change because of political desires is exactly why Church and State are (generally) separate (except in 'certain' countries). Forcing political decisions on Churches is the same as Churches forcing political decisions on the State. Neither should be tolerated.

I am a fervent Augustinian in that regard. *grin*

Agreed.

In this bill, it is still up to the specific church etc to marry the couple or not, it will now just be legal for same sex couples to marry in the 'traditional' sense.

could gay couples not sign a civil partnership , doesnt that give them the same legal contract and benefits that a marriage does ?

I personally don't understand why Marriage was ever a religious thing.
I know it's one of the 7 sacraments for Catholics, but I still don't get what makes it religious.

I live in Iowa in the US, gay marriage has been legal here for several years now

@Guild - Why should the name of it be different just because they're gay?

yeah why should homosexual couples not suffer as much as heterosexual ones?

Remedy™ wrote:I personally don't understand why Marriage was ever a religious thing.
I know it's one of the 7 sacraments for Catholics, but I still don't get what makes it religious.

I live in Iowa in the US, gay marriage has been legal here for several years now

@Guild - Why should the name of it be different just because they're gay?

why would gay couples care ?

if they love each other, and have the same rights and legal benefits. what more is there

I am strongly opposed to the denaturation of marriage whether it is civil or religious (even more I'd be obviously in this case). Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
With marriage comes the case of children, and we are all children of a mother and a father, so is Nature. Not to mention all the troubles coming within countries who already accepted the "scientifically-made" children, where now they have to consider "parent 3 and parent 4" just due to the divorce/remarriage, the "assisted medical procreation" (for lesbians) and the "for others gestation" (for gays) with givers of sperm or incubator females (remember the quote I posted few weeks ago about renting female belly by a LGBT socialist lobbyist millionaire, it's a LGBT demand). With marriage comes adoption, and Russia (I am glad they took a clear stance) declared that french gay couples won't be able to adopt children from Russia. Same goes for many Eastern Europe countries, for most African countries, as well as many Asian countries who will probably declare that later. This idiotic law in France proposed by socialists and backed by communists and far left while being rejected by most of right wing and far right wing and even a great part of centrists and countryside left wingers. I know of homosexuals who are against this law because they do believe marriage should remain the same and that there's no point for them to ask it. Not to mention that reducing all homosexuals to LGBT is quite...disrespectful.
With marriage comes adoption (rejected by most countries around the world except South Africa, Canada and Western European nations) while there's already in my country at least, a much bigger demand of children than children available to be adopted, increasing demand would solve nothing at all.
Not to mention that Brazil celebrated in August their first triple marriage (go check BBC News World if you don't believe me), meaning, three people married together, and it's already asked by LGBT couples. Polygamy or polyandry isn't really what I would call progress, but it will be quite funny to see Islam radicals agreeing with "political correct progressists"

@Guild, it's because they want to troublemake, most won't marry, it's just to assault the meaning of marriage, that's why they don't want civil union. It's for symbolism. Attack marriage and defeat its meaning.

Guild wrote:could gay couples not sign a civil partnership , doesnt that give them the same legal contract and benefits that a marriage does ?

Actually, they are entirely different. And in the US, some states don't even recognize the Civil Partnerships of other states, and those states which have Civil/Domestic Partnerships have different rights/benefits depending on the state in which the couple was approved (can't even say married).

Also, just because they have a different sexual orientation doesn't mean they didn't grow up dreaming of getting married and having husbands and wives like every other innocent and romantic child in our society. Why should the sex of their spouse determine what their partnership is called when it is a legal doctrine, and the law refers to it as marriage. Yes, that term was taken from Christianity, which took the same term from elsewhere (I can't rightly recall where at the moment). What bothers me is that a same sex couple getting married and calling it marriage does nothing to devalue the term when it is applied to a religious union. It's just another excuse for people to get their panties in a bunch and have some kind of "rational" argument against same-sex marriage.

Remedy™ wrote:I personally don't understand why Marriage was ever a religious thing.
I know it's one of the 7 sacraments for Catholics, but I still don't get what makes it religious.

I live in Iowa in the US, gay marriage has been legal here for several years now

@Guild - Why should the name of it be different just because they're gay?

I kind of miss living in Iowa, for that reason alone. I can't believe they're more progressive than Oregon. Ugh. Even Washington beat us to the Gay Marriage Act. Damn rural Republicans (and my father).

fem fatale wrote:yeah why should homosexual couples not suffer as much as heterosexual ones?

Exactly.

Guild wrote:

Remedy™ wrote:I personally don't understand why Marriage was ever a religious thing.
I know it's one of the 7 sacraments for Catholics, but I still don't get what makes it religious.

I live in Iowa in the US, gay marriage has been legal here for several years now

@Guild - Why should the name of it be different just because they're gay?

why would gay couples care ?

if they love each other, and have the same rights and legal benefits. what more is there

See my first couple paragraphs. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are okay with being forced to do something different than everyone else around them. They have the same hopes and dreams as anyone. And it is NOT the same thing. That's the point. If Civil Partnerships/Unions were the same thing as marriage, those opposed to same-sex marriage would be just as upset with them being in place as they are with legal marriage. Again with the second-class treatment of same-sex couples.

They can't even adopt in most states. Because of sexual orientation. More discrimination against them for who they decide to have sex with on a regular basis. **Filtered** ridiculous.

http://rt.com/politics/russia-ban-adoptions-gay-464/
Russia stance on the matter of adoption (France being 4th country to adopt from Russia, now probably that it will become harder for french couples to adopt from Russia. Well done socialists!)


At least France mistakes inspired Poland to prevent doing any kind of unions, knowing by example that it would later turn into marriage (which happens anyway). Glad that our mistakes helped Polish parliament to prevent doing same mistakes as my country did.