BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..

Subject: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 07:46 AM

I know, I know.. Another thread inviting criticism of religion. What's more, in this case, Catholic leaders. Sorry Joe, but over this side of the pond, we are starting a bit of a row over religious leaders from all sides trying to tell the government there is a higher power and politicians can't define marriage.

Now, notwithstanding not many voted for the present UK government, I can't recall voting for Cardinals and Bishops either...


Catholic Cardinal criticises Marriage plan

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:38 AM

Don't be silly. Everybody knows that all the trouble in this world is caused by people loving each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:52 AM

The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 09:21 AM

Nobody asked for my view but here it is: I have no difficulty with any church that denies people marriage 'within' the church (or Church) any more than I have an argument with what the Cardinal does in his own home, assuming it's all legal, etc. IMO, the boundary the Cardinal has crossed is that he feels the Church has the right to dictate what will be allowed in a civil ceremony, and for that he should mind his business except as it pertains to himself as a voter and citizen.

These days there is altogether too much mingling and 'shacking up' of church and state, and it's gotta stop. Period. If you personally feel that gays shouldn't marry, then don't marry a gay either as a minister/priest or as a participant in the ceremony. But please don't presume to tell ME what to do based on YOUR interpretation of what constitutes morality.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 10:41 AM

Bruce, are you suggesting that religion should stay out of politics? If so, why don't you just come on out and say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 11:56 AM

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

And that hasn't been happening since time immemorial, with divorce and babies born to single mothers?

He added: "Imagine for a moment that the government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that 'no one will be forced to keep a slave'.

"Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right?"

The fundamental human right there would be the loss of freedom for the slave. How does that equate to allowing two loving human beings of the same sex to have the same 'rights' as heterosexual couples.

I wonder what their Christ would say if he came back now?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 12:18 PM

"are you suggesting that religion should stay out of politics? If so, why don't you just come on out and say so?"

That's what I said, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 01:20 PM

Any such set of rules which are interpretations of translations of multiple inputs in different cultures from various historical eras are by definition, capricious, arbitrary, subjective and biased.



If Cardinal Keith O'Brien doesn't want to be married, I will stand up for his right to stay single... and possibly celibate too!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:15 PM

The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages.

Umm, no. It wasn't called that until a bunch of people in the 16th/17th century decided they were better than the years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire, about which they knew next to nothing, and gave it that name. Because they did not know about it, not because it was nasty. This latter period was well known for not having theocratic government, not being run by narrow minded religious groups. (Clue - irony required.)

The so-called Dark Ages involved peoples of a number of worship practices, and almost saw the wiping out of a western church, were it not for a number of Irish religious people, and subsequently similar people from Britain, both Celtic and English, speading out across the continent. However, they did not run things, though at the end of the period, the lives of many people were better than the the lives of their equivalents at the beginning. There was a high level of education.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:23 PM

The Church's doctrines (any church's) has no business defining civil processes. Marriage should be defined solely by civil process, for all legal purposes and civil definitions. Then, if some Church wants to honor within its own bubble only those marriages it has separately blessed, let it. Who gives a fuck? The civil sphere should not presume to tell people what they can think religiously, and the religious sphere should not presume to define the civil state of marriage.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:24 PM

In the early days in the US, in many places there was no one to record who was "married" and who was not. This caused some confusion.

As was traditional elsewhere, as the churches were established here they of course made records of who had "joined in the sacraments" of marriage.

When laws "registering" people who chose to live together were proposed, it was clearly presented that the Civil Marriage requiring a license was NOT THE SAME THING AS THE MARRIAGE SACRAMENT controlled by the churches. Had they then called it a Civil Union, we might not have these arguments now.

As recently as 1957, when I consulted the pastor of the church I then attended to discuss my pending marriage, he emphatically stated that he would administer the sacraments of Marriage regardless of whether or not we showed him a "license" to be married, although he also recommended that we get the license in order to obtain the CIVIL BENEFITS of living together.

Inability to understand that the SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE according to any religion is entirely different and a separate matter from the LICENSED CIVIL MARRIAGE regulated by the government is simple illitiracy. Unfortunately illiteracy is a characteristic of ALL RELIGIOUS NUTCAKES I happen to know much about in the present US.

It would be my recommendation that the Civil Marriage License be banned, with approval of the same terms and conditions for a CIVIL UNION LICENSE. (i.e. just change the name on the civil licenses.) I'd be quite happy to change the name on the license certificate I have, and promise to do it neatly. A "Marriage" could then be understood by the illiterate Poop and his equally ignorant minions as something separate, over which the US government has no control and exercises NO RESTRICTIONS and for which the US government makes no promise of any Civil benefits.

Maybe then the illiterates would be able to understand that the License doesn't make them more holy, but does subject them to some civil benefits (and restrictions) and that the CIVIL benefits cannot be restricted to suit their particular superstitions.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:45 PM

Ey up John. If only all Usasians and UKasians understood that crucial difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM

Last year I attended a Quaker (Friends) wedding... I had not understood that they do not have someone "marry them"...but rather stand up and declare themselves married.... with all attendees as witnesses. I gather that most or all jurisdictions accommodate this practice and recognize these unions. Would that all religious institutions were so reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 07:44 PM

In most US states, the civil (licensed) marriage requires:

1. You must obtain a license from a designated government office.

2. A person designated as authorized to "perform the ceremony" must witness and ensure that parties to the union comply with the minimal legal requirements.

3. Both parties to the union must affirm that the union is voluntary.

The requirement that a "designated person" must "officiate" is no different than the requirement that a contract to sell a junker car requires a notarized bill of sale, to avoid questions about the legality of the transaction.

The "Civil Affirmation," volunarily entered into, and properly witnessed, entitles the persons to act as a "single entity" in CIVIL ACTIVITIES. The agreement is very much the exact equivalent of the registering of a business partnership.

Precisely what civil actions are regulated may vary with the state, but generally include the presumption that property is owned jointly, that debts contracted by one are binding on both, and in most cases that a full "implied power of attorney" exists whereby either may speak for the other in most matters.

There is no mention in any civil marriage laws that I've heard of that requires the parties to the agreement to HAVE SEX or to have children. In the event that there are children, in the absence of any other way of treating them, under Civil Law they are considered a "property" just like the junker truck on the front lawn (which civil authorities may compel you to register, repair, or get rid of). The CIVIL contract makes you jointly responsible for your property, including the kids if you choose to have any or either intentionally or inadvertently produce them. It does NOT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE SEX, and has nothing to do with whether you do or don't.

A few states persist in the ridiculous notion that you must be married to avoid your sex being "nasty" in some way, but those rules generally are so perverted that they're largely ignored, except by those with one or another perverted obsession over bodily functions of various kinds.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Crowhugger
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:02 PM

Well said, 9er, Amos & JiK.

Religions should be making rules for their own members, full stop. Certainly not for anyone else. Now I'm trying to recall a concept I heard of once...lemme think... scraping the bottom of this old memory. It's on the tip of my tongue ... something about separation of a couple of things; what were they? Darn, it'll come back to me eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 08:54 AM

A "grotesque subversion" is what gay marriage is, apparently. Of a "universally accepted human right".

I would see grotesque subversions in marriages which reduce women to incubating ciphers, subject to chastisement if they get uppity.

I would see grotesque subversion in organisations which do not see women as fully human, equipped with the mental skills to function as completely equal with men.

I would see grotesque subversion in regarding a sick woman's life as of less import than that of the child she carries.

I would see grotesque subversion in polygamy.

(Please note I am not aiming all of this at any single group.)

But what would I know. I am one of that grotesque subversion of the default state of humanity. I am only a woman.

But one who suspects that the idea of a marriage of equals might lie behind some of the objections to gay marriages. It cannot stand as an icon of Christ and the church.

Joke on radio this morning. Could it have ben Rabbi Blue? A gay couple are walking down the street, and see a young married couple engaged in a fierce row. "That," says one man to his partner, "is the problem with mixed marriages."

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Silas
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:28 AM

Interesting that one of the leaders of the biggest kiddyfiddler clubs in the world is trying to give us lessons in morality.

I suggest you get your own house in order first.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:50 AM

Could this just be one more stunt from a disgraced and increasingly irrelevant and rejected religious institution to try to regain some of its authority, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Michael
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM

It was indeed the Aged Rabbi Penny, made me splutter into my tea.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:33 AM

Mike, I spotted a comment on the Archers message board which a) confirmed that, and b) revealed that he had had more support in messages to Today than had the blessed Cardinal.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 01:31 PM

I think what the cardinal was saying was, Where does it all end?
Once we start redefining "marriage" to suit any minority, the whole family structure becomes imperiled.
Group marriage? incestuous marriage? etc etc....the mind boggles...and all you "freedom lovers" forget that it is the welfare of the children which should be paramount.

The breakdown of the "family" appears to me to be at the root of most of the social problems we see around us.

Homosexuals have a huge voice in the media, and trying to reason against the promotion of homosexuality is becoming more and more difficult. I have spent ages putting foward my views in regard to homosexuality and hiv, but that subject seems to taboo in the media.

"Gay rights" are one of the main diverions used to divide and rule, they are of little importance when set beside the very real problems which are about to be inflicted on all of us.
Unemployment? removal of benefits? starvation of children? bloody revolution?.......dont worry all will be well as long as we are all "equal".

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, almost forgot.....Its not about civil union with all the "rights" associated to it,   it has to be THE WORD.

I have heard dozens of activists saying they dont want "rights", they want THE WORD......re-defined to suit their small minority of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 02:50 PM

ake... You certainly HAVE "spent ages putting foward your views"... but I fear it is you who miss the point.
No matter what your misguided opinion is about gay rights, there are many, many (most in fact) who are AIDS free and monogamous.

Marriage for everyone else will not change because it is allowed between same-sex couples. It is just an emotional committment and a legal situation about property rights and other matters. Those who are NOT gay can continue as they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 06:31 PM

Not 'zacly, Bill. When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality.

But yeah, whattheheck is up with that Ake person?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: gnu
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 09:24 PM

Progress or regress or stagnate. I choose progress. YOUR religion has no place in MY life. I leave you alone and you leave me alone. That's the Golden Rule.

Corollary : If what I do does not hurt you, fuck off and leave me alone.

Seems like a simple concept to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:09 PM

I wonder if I'm gonna get in trouble. I ran into a very vocal Catholic woman at church yesterday, and she was going on and on about how terrible it was that a woman at Georgetown (Catholic) University was not getting birth control as part of her health insurance package. I told the vocal parishioner that I totally disagreed with her, that the woman should have birth control as part of her insurance if most people get the same benefit. Then it's the client's option to choose birth control or not - but I'm embarrassed by Catholics who make an issue of it.

Same with all this bullshit about same-sex marriage "threatening" the sanctity of marriage. My bishop spent a fair amount of money supporting California Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. I made sure that none of my donations went toward these causes.

I DO think that churches should be involved in political issues, and I am very proud that my Catholic Church speaks out in favor of a "preferential option for the poor" and against the death penalty. I think these are crucial issues. The birth control and gay marriage tantrums are just silly.

I won't say anything much about abortion. I think it's wrong and I grieve the loss of life it causes, and I don't want to argue with anybody about that. But I don't think it's my business to interfere with a woman's right to make her own choice about her own pregnancy.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:26 PM

"..When the gay couple moved into our little building cluster, three hetero couples got divorces within the year. So you see, it is not just correlation. It is causality."

Wha?.. Huh?... causality? Did you perhaps conduct interviews to clarify WHY there were divorces?

I'd think you were attempting some odd sort of joke there... but you have not joked much about this issue.

...but *I* have a joke on the type of logic you seem to follow...

"All Indians walk in single file. I know because the Indian *I* saw was walking in single file."

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: gnu
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 10:27 PM

Joe... YOU are a Cat'lic as I know em. Tolerant and intelligent. Just about all Cat'lics I know (French and Irish hertitages) are the same. Ya go to church and ya commune and ya keep yer nose clean and ya don't tread on others.

I wrote a long addition to this post and deleted it. No sense in it. gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: banjoman
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:04 AM

I have no prolem with same sex couples entering into civil contracts which define their intention to live together. However, IMO this should not be called marriage as this has always been understood as the union between a man and a woman. Call it a civil partnership or anything you want - even define it in law and allow partners certain benefits of living in partnership but dont call it marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:44 AM

Wondered how long before Akenaton started his homophobic rant.

To ask where it all ends, we might as well ban football because after all, Victor Kara was executed in a football stadium, Afghan prisoners were executed at half time when the Taliban were in power, hence football needs a lid on it before we start executing people in the name of football.

Marriage has not been understood as the union between man and wife any more than hung drawn and quartered has been understood as the punishment for asking why we have a Monarch. We can't judge civilisation by periods leading to rather than reflecting enlightened circumstances, i.e. 21st century.

Times move on, and cohabitation by a couple who love each other with all the legal benefits society bestows on loving couples who make the pledge to commit is marriage. I understand it as such, therefore to say anything else is understood just doesn't hold up. Once we have a secular piece of legislation on the matter, that alone is what we live by. There is no higher power than Parliament. Period.

The Cardinal is entitled to a view, but by the same token so does everybody else. I actually like the idea of religious leaders contemplating morality and commentating on the state of society from that perspective. Their education and calling puts them in a good position to contemplate such things. But to go beyond advising and calling for laws to reflect their creed rather than the democratic will of the people?

Well, that's where their irrelevance shows through and lessens the otherwise decent role they can offer society.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 06:50 AM

"What's up with that Ake person?"

He sees homosexual practice as being extremely dangerous to those who do it, and he thinks it should not be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle,
Homosexuals are infected by hiv/aids in far greater numbers percentage wise than any other "at risk" minority.....and so far no one has satisfactorally explained why.
I think that in the interests of that minority some attempt should be made to answer that question, and take steps to rectify the situation.

You don't give a fuck?.........well I'm afraid that's your problem.
Whats wrong with YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:20 AM

Bill, I guess it wasn't obvious enough (or even funny??). But of course, a gay couple cannot cause or prevent a divorce. Nobody's sexuality that is not coerced or involves a lesser being has anything to do with anyone else's.

OK, Ake. I geddit. You are homphobic. That, my friend is YOUR problem, unless you are making public policy. Then you have to be opposed at every step.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:28 AM

Lynne Featherstone,(Equality Minister, whatever that is,`ark at `er), purports to speak for the nation when she advocates the term "marriage" be used in reference to legally recognised unions between homosexual couples. I believe she is mistaken, having never gauged the national opinions. Also I fear the school curriculums being amended to present this as a progressive move.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:45 AM

All part of the breakdown of society I'm afraid.

Such things happen as empires decline.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 07:49 AM

"Homophobic"?......what rude name can you think up for someone who closes their eyes and minds to behaviour which carries with it so much death and disease?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 08:33 AM

"what rude name can you think up for someone who closes their eyes and minds to behaviour which carries with it so much death and disease? "

Catholic bishop - they need to open their eyes to what happen in their church.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 08:51 AM

I agree with that leveller!

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 09:47 AM

It's promiscuity that leads to death and disease, not being homosexual or hetero. Common sense, respect for the rights of others, and basic education would help with that.

Rotsa ruck, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 09:59 AM

Well said leeneia.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 10:58 AM

So you think that homosexuals are THAT much more promiscuous than hetros?.....you may be right, but how do you stop what seems to be a large part of the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual "marriage" would not end the high promiscuity rates, as the take up rate is very small(in percentage terms), and the average homosexual "marriage" or union lasts just under 1.5 years.

In what way would "Common sense, respect for the rights of others, and basic education" affect the promicuity figures?
Do you think homosexuals are slow learners, or just plain stupid?

I think it is more likely to be part and parcel of the lifestyle, hedonism and risk taking.
Whatever, something requires to be done to stop or slow the infection rates.
I think the latest data points to 75% of new cases being amongst homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 11:35 AM

Any 'data' that shows a behavior problem indicates that education and warnings are relevant....NOT that marriage should be forbidden.

You are linking issues in a subjective way.........

Don't you see that even by your own subjective view of the problem, being allowed to legally marry would tend to reduce promiscuity and disease?

..no, I suppose you can't see that...

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 12:49 PM

Since certain illiterates refuse to admit that the same word can have different meanings in differing contexts, I'll repeat my suggestion that any licensed joining of persons to act together should be ALWAYS called a "Civil Union."

Additionally, any joining of two persons according to religious conventions and creed MUST BE CALLED "Holy Matrimony."

Completing a vow of Matrimony in a religion DOES NOT entitle anyone to the CIVIL RIGHTS that go along with the licensed union regulated by civil authorities. You MUST GET THE LICENSE before the joining, or you're NOT MARRIED in the eyes of the state.

I would suggest that civil penalties for unlicensed marriages should be immediately enforced, and anyone not in a licensed CIVIL MARRIAGE should immediately CEASE RECEIVING joint insurance policies, automatic beneficiary benefits in case of deaths, inheritances of property, immunity from testifying against each other, joint accountabiltiy or control of property (INCLUDING CHILDREN who should be immediately taken from them), all privileges of making legally binding decisions for each other, and any other benefits accorded to LICENSED CIVIL UNIONS by the Civil Laws.

It is the custom here that when a couple determines to "join in Holy Matirmony" they simultaneously get a license and also SEPARATELY participate in a Civil Union. Both may be accomplished within a single "ceremony" but BOTH MUST BE DONE. That by convention both of these TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTIONS are called "marriage" DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME. If you don't do BOTH, you only recieve the benefits attending to the one observed.

A church or religion may prescribe requirements for those participating WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTION in the "half of it" that comes within its domain. The "other half" is solely and EXCLUSIVELY in the control of the Civil Laws and the neither of the two have ANY BUSINESS OR REASON FOR attempting to regulate the other, especially with respect to persons not of their own faith.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 02:38 PM

I think that pretending it's just the word 'marriage' which is the issue is downright dishonest. The fact is that various religions (in fact, nearly all of them!) do not entertain any sympathy with homosexuals, and look on them as an abomination. Far from letting them be married in church (or mosque or synagogue) like anyone else, they'd rather they hid themselves away because they're sinful and evil. To me this is outdated thinking and should by now have been consigned to history along with racism etc. Homosexuals are just people, they have every right to be married in church in the same way as heterosexuals. Any discrimination is cruel and blatently unfair. It must be so painful for a gay couple to know they are shunned and denied like this. Promiscuity, infidelity, transmission of STD's etc are universal unfortunately, and not solely the outcome of same-sex relationships. The nastiness and spite of homophobia never fails to amaze me. What is the problem? They're not doing the least bit of harm to anyone, they just love eachother as any couple do.

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 02:43 PM

I've said it before. But it is so darned clever, I will say it again. "I think homosexuals should have the same opportunity to be miserable in a marriage that the rest of us have." QED.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 04:48 PM

"politicians can't define marriage"

No kiddin'! They can't even define democracy...

Okay...so who can define marriage? Who's got the last word on the matter?

You?

I don't think so.

The thing we all got in common is, we like to yak a lot. We like to sound off. Me the same as you. And we got opinions....lots of opinions! Same as we got facial imperfections.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 05:04 PM

Well, Chongo, it's true that nobody can have the last word on defining marriage, but (for what it's worth) I see marriage as a most serious commitment between two people who sincerely love eachother, intend to stay together in reciprocal fidelity and who wish to declare this publicly, legally and formally. Personally, I regard my marriage as an infinite source of happiness, joy and emotional security, which I could never gain alone or in a casual relationship. I also see my marriage as a responsibility (gladly accepted) to care for and cherish eachother in a selfless way, seeking the good of the other as a priority. It's also for the rest of our lives, forever, no matter what fate may bring. (This surely is exactly the same for gays.)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Neil D
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 11:37 PM

"He sees homosexual practice as being extremely dangerous to those who do it, and he thinks it should not be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle,
Homosexuals are infected by hiv/aids in far greater numbers percentage wise than any other "at risk" minority.....and so far no one has satisfactorally explained why."

The poster who posted hat statement must surely be aware that committed lesbians are infected by hiv/aids at a far lower rate percentage wise than heterosexuals. So by his own logic, lesbianism certainly should be promoted as a safe and healthy lifestyle.

I think the most interesting thing about the article in the opening post is that the leader of your Conservative party came out in favor of same-sex marriage, something that you'd never see in this country. (US)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 05:41 AM

Yeah but don't mistake Cameron's need to be popular for a liberal outlook on life. He'll say anything to get a vote.

That said, credit where it's due. He is young enough not to have the weight of institutional bigotry on his shoulders. By saying what he said, he is alienating a large, (though obnoxious) wing of his party, not to mention all the born again loonies.   

I suspect this can be solved by etymology rather than creed. Marriage is whatever we say it is, on account of it being a word. Once Lynn Featherstone's bill becomes law, there shall be a legal definition too. Bugger me, I sound like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, saying a word can mean whatever I wish it to mean. But I reckon Lewis Carroll was bang on all the same. (of course, he was "bong" on, but that's another matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 05:56 AM

"Bugger me,"

Is that legal now?

Subject: RE: BS: Expert on marriage opens mouth..
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 07:39 AM

Orwell also inferred that a word can mean what we want it to mean...he called it "newspeak"
The word gay is an excellent example of "newspeak", designed to disguise the meaning of the word homosexual....to make it more user friendly.

Bill I have not "missed the point"....in the same way the never ending quest for gay equality is again designed to disguise the health problems associated with the lifestyle.

This serves neither society nor the homosexuals, who will continue to be infected while the "liberals" especially those on Mudcat pretend all is well.

Having a strong voice and power in the media is all very well, but sometimes that power can be used to conceal.....not to inform.