Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[DJKillaQueen]

SF what on earth does numbers have to do with it? Was racism ok when non caucasians were only 5% of the population? You are using the term minority to justify descrimination against that minority.

As the chart shows above....considerably more heterosexuals are not interested in church marriage either......which leads me to suggest the church is in itself a minority movement.

Let me ask you this. What are you afraid of? Do you really think the church will come crashing down if a gay couple marry within it? What difference does it really make? A belief system being centuries old does not make prejudice ok.

You also make the assumption that most gay people aren't interested in church marriage - well maybe if the church were not so hostile towards gays they might be. Maybe if the church were not so backward in it's thinking towards both gays and women in might not be dying off in this country in the way it is.

For me the issue is clear. People do not choose their sexuality. To then allow archaic bigotry to descriminate against them is just not acceptable anymore. The sooner it is forced to drop descrimination the better as far as I'm concerned.

[silverfox]

"...Speaking of figures, do we have any figures to give us an idea of the number of unoccupied pews at your average church service in England?"

Not I'm sorry Bob, I don't. Sphillips may be able to help here.

[DJKillaQueen]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Speaking of figures, do we have any figures to

> give us an idea of the number of unoccupied pews

> at your average church service in England?

....Just think of what we could do with

> them instead!

Precisely. SF's arguement now seems to have switched to a fear that churches will not be allowed to use the terms man and woman? What ridiculous nonsense and I personally am fed up of being told that sexuality is a 'different' case to other forms of prejudice. The church of all institutions seems intent on keeping itself a devisive one.....what benefit can such an insitution ever have to a society in that form?

[silverfox]

Let me go back to my basic point DJKillaQueen.

There is no discrimination here that I can see. Civil Parnerships offer everything that a marriage ceremony does with all the same rights regarding inheritance, pensions, tax breaks etc. The issue in question then is the concept of marriage - what does it mean and what do people understand by that term.

As far as I can see there is no desire in the gay community to become 'married'. It will not make them any more equal. It appears to be a handfull of politicians promoting the idea. As Loz said at the beginning of this thread, surely there are more important matters our policians should be devoting their energies to.

[*Bob*]

I expect you know this from your extensive knowledge of 'the gay community' (whatever that means) right?

The current situation prevents people who want to get married from doing so - and forces people who don't want to - to have to.

Arcane nonsense.

[silverfox]

Here you go Bob, you'll love this snippet I've just found:

Forget mother and father: 'Parents could be re-named Progenitors A and B' under plans for gay marriage

Erosion of traditional words in British statute could 'lead to legislative chaos'

Lord Brennan QC said redefinition of marriage could have 'Orwellian' consequences

Parents could be legally referred to as 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B' under plans for same sex marriage, regardless of their sexuality, it has been claimed.

A leading lawyer said, if the institution of marriage is redefined, the erosion of traditional words such as 'mother' and 'father' from British law could have 'Orwellian' consequences.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114768/Gay-marriage-plans-UK-Father-mother-named-Progenitors-A-B.html#ixzz1p5VxfXmj

[*Bob*]

The fabric of society will crumble, I tell you!

See also: catastrophic predictions RE giving women the vote.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmm there is no desire by those who are gay to be 'married'. Have you ever even heard of the gay christian movement?

Here you go....

LCGM

I think for many of those gay christians, 'marriage' may mean a heck of a lot.

You still haven't really given a good enough reason as to why same sex couples should be EXCLUDED from church marriages SF beyond some irrelevant fear that the language of a marriage ceremony may have to change.

And no...same sex couples are not equal through civil partnership. A heterosexual couple has the choice of registry office or a church wedding. Homosexuals don't and why?...because at the core of your belief is that God disapproves of homosexuality. THAT is the only issue the church has with gay marriage and to pretend otherwise is nonsense.

So where does that leave a gay christian or are you of the belief that all gay people should be athiests. See for me there is a lot at stake here, it's not just marriage, it's the right of gay people to belong to a church, believe in god etc and not be descriminated against by that institution they wish to belong to.

[DJKillaQueen]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fabric of society will crumble, I tell you!

>

>

> See also: catastrophic predictions RE giving women

> the vote.

Couldn't agree more...... and not just women being given the vote.....allowing black people to share the same colleges as whites, allowing people to be educated... and heck even allowing the bible to be published so that people could read it for themselves!

[El Pibe]

I'm not sure Daily Mail scare-mongering articles based upon an individual's hypothetical musings are actually worthy of comment are they?

[DJKillaQueen]

Just because Spain elected to change language in those terms doesn't mean that needs to happen here (I wonder too if something is lost in translation). For same sex marriages, a simple change from husband and wife to partner would suffice. Partner A and B could be used on marriage certificates too. Heterosexuals could continue to use husband and wife. I really don't see any issue there.

But to argue that sorting out wording under the new legislation should be a barrier to combatting prejudice just doesn't wash with me.

[silverfox]

Even progenitor A and B, one and two, would cause problems.

If the man were progenitor A, or one, would this be sexist?

In the case of same sex gay couples who use a surrogate to have a child do we need progenitor a, b, c and in what order, who is who?

Where you have a trans-sexual in a marriage who may have had children as a father or mother in an earlier marriage before changing sex, is there only one progenitor? A minus-A progenitor to denote an earlier child?

What happens to terms such as father-in-law, mother-in-law? Progenitor A, or B, of Progenitor A, or B (or possibly C)? Step brother, step sister?

It should all keep the lawyers in work for many a good year.

[El Pibe]

Spanish beauracracy has always been awash with bizarre legalese anyway, but here we simply see the problems of a linguistic issue, not a social one.

The Spanish word for parents 'padres' means literally 'fathers'.

If you have the possibility of there being two females then suddenly the label is potentially misleading.

Someone has taken the pedantic route here as collective nouns default to the masculine anyway, but don't rule out the presnce of both genders, hence padres means mum and dad despite being literally 'dads'

Thus ni?os can be a mixed group, though ni?as would denote specifically girls.

They've decided that rather than allow padres to be gender neutral, or introduce madres into documents (madres would normally mean a group of mothers rather than two female parents of a child) they've settled upon a dry, if rather cumbersome compromise.

You also have to remember that Castellano has a governing body, a bit like French, there to protect the language, and being the fusty conservative bunch they are would almost certainly have had a say in this clumsiness.

English of course is by and large a gender neutral language and in this case 'parents' will happily suffice for a same sex partnership.

[Chippy Minton]

surely there are more important matters our policians should be devoting their energies to

So after your very first post on this thread when you stated "Let's have a yes or no vote to decide the issue" you've completed a full U-turn then!

[silverfox]

On the contrary Chippy, I hope I've shown it's not just a simple matter that only involves the gay couple and doesn't affect anyone else.

The proposal will have institutional, philosophical, religious, linguistic and legal implications while not enhancing equality or benefitting society. There is no need for it and politicians should be concentrating on other mattters. If they do insist on introducing the matter then the wider population should have it's say.

Don't come crying to me when it all goes pear-shaped.

[DJKillaQueen]

What on earth are you talking about SF? It will benefit the place of homosexuals within the church, homosexuals as devout to their faith as you or any church member but yet treated as 'unequal'.

Answer one question...Do you in principle think it is descriminatory to not allow gay people to marry in a church. Put aside all the ridiculous debates about terms or Orwellian diasaster for society....do you believe in the fundamental view that religious prejudice is wrong in any terms against homosexuals?

Maybe if you answer that first before argiung the toss about definitons in law, there might be a more truthful debate to be had.

[Chippy Minton]

If politicians should be concentrating on other matters, why are you calling for a referendum on it?

You are aware that if, in the extremely, extremely unlikely event, a referendum was called on this, politicians would have to be involved aren't you?

And don't worry, there is absolutely no conceivable way allowing gay marriage can go "pear-shaped" and I certainly won't need your shoulder to cry on when it happens.

[El Pibe]

I'm afraid SF that you've so far persuaded noone with your vague pronouncements of doom and tendencious daily mail articles.

Care to elaborate with some concrete arguments?

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Loz said at the beginning of this thread, surely there are

> more important matters our policians should be devoting their energies to.

Point of order, Mr Speaker...

I said, "there are so many issues in the country right now, why on earth [do you want to] have a referendum on this one". I was not saying that gay marriages are not an issue worth pursuing by the government. Quite the opposite, I think it is an idea who's time has come and the government should be changing the law in the way proposed.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why then change the centuries old meaning of marriage for a vocal, marginal, minority, many of

> whom may have no interest in the matter anyway?

As far as I can see, it has never had a single meaning, from the cultures with polygamy through to the establishment of divorce (which rather changed the whole basic concept of 'till death us do part').

So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF?

[sphillips]

?The proposal will have institutional, philosophical, religious, linguistic and legal implications?? you claim silverfox. Even if we accept all that - so what? I think you?ve got yourself into a right muddle.

DJK asks a straightforward question: Do you in principle think it is discriminatory not to allow gay people to marry in a church? Quite.

Claiming that it?s just a small, unrepresentative vocal minority out to cause trouble and destroy everything we cherish won?t wash either. I guess that was the response to Mrs Pankhurst; or when Rosa Parks caused a fuss on the bus.

Alice Thompson in The Times today: ?The Church has recently [only recently?] become shrill, unpleasant, divisive and exclusive, caught up in an inward-looking feud that appears to take no heed of its parishioners.? Nothing new there then, and I say that as a member of it, but thankfully and most definitely not the view of the church I attend.

[woodrot]

I fail to see why this should be an issue and why it should merit debate, unless you are a card carrying arsehole

If a church doesnt like it, then fuck 'em - their product is easily avaialble at other religious outlets

[silverfox]

Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female

Sphillips - DJK asks a straightforward question: Do you in principle think it is discriminatory not to allow gay people to marry in a church? -

This isn't a straightforward question and my answer is not necessarily. If, or when, gay marriage is introduced it will only be a matter of time before it is extended to churches, mosques, synagogues, chapels etc. When this happens it will be possible for a gay couple, even if they are atheists and have no religious conviction, to demand to be married in a church as is their right. This could happen in the same way that small bed and breakfast businesses have been targeted for suspect reasons. In this case the church or other body should be able to say no, this is just an attempt to insult and make a mockery of our faith.

However, the question of whether gay christians, for example, should be denied the right to be married in their church according to the rites of that church is more problematical. The CofE, for example, is divided on this issue. The reasons for disallowing gay marriage here are based on the traditions and beliefs of that church that the gay couple would be aware of, even if they disagree with those aspects. They are still welcome to worship in that church but they are excluded from some of that church's rites. Is this discrimination? There's nothing stopping the couple going elsewhere if they don't adhere to the rites and practises of that church.

Woodrot, I can't help you I'm afraid. If you fail to see why this should be an issue and why it should merit debate.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female

Is that it? Is that all you have? What about polygamous and polyandrous cultures - they've been around for centuries? So that's (usually) male and several females.

And anyway, you are wrong. Same sex marriage has been around for centuries going back to (at least) the Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Some tribes in Africa have had same sex marriage throughout their history up to the present day.

So you cannot rely on a fallacious centuries old meaning' to prop up your argument.

[silverfox]

There's bound to be the odd example Loz as any anthropologist will tell you.

However, as you are more than aware, if you stop 100 people in the street and ask them what does marriage mean to them, male and female will be mentioned about 99% of the time (maybe 95% in East Dulwich)