Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[El Pibe]

I think this thread may be going in circles now.

SF, without any new evidence I think leave for appeal should not be granted ;)

[silverfox]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> I think this thread may be going in circles now.

>

> SF, without any new evidence I think leave for

> appeal should not be granted ;)

As the consultation phase has only just begun, I suspect this thread could run and run.

[silverfox]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> There is evidence that single sex marriage was

> accepted and practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome

> until the Christian Church took over and made it a

> sin punishable by death.

There will always be anomalies Maxxi. However, the following from Wikipedia seems to show a distinction existed in Roman Law - not unlike the current Civil Partnership/Marriage distinction

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[57] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[58] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[59]

^ John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80?85.

^ Chris Scarre "Chronicles of the Roman Emperors" (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1995). Page 151.

^ Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24?28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43?49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani 5.3?5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55?56, 67, 76?80).

^ Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), p. 5.

^ Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7). "The Romans may have accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriage."

[Otta]

Look, it is going to happen, and if bigots are offended by it, then all the better.

Pathetic.

[silverfox]

big?ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Such a definition could well apply to you Otta

[Otta]

Really, how so?

[El Pibe]

"Such a definition could well apply to you Otta"

That was very History Today wasn't it, like a well educated "No, I think you'll find that it is you who sullies others' olfactory sense with an odour of fecal matter"

[silverfox]

Now now El Pibe, no need to resort to base postings

[DJKillaQueen]

What offends me most about SF's stance is not the continual diatribe that 'marriage' is for men and women only (an argument SF is losing miserably) but the avoidance of saying why homosexual relationships can not be seen as equal to heterosexual ones.....because that is what is at the core of it.

The argument that an institution has a right to be openly prejudiced because most of it's members are prejudiced doesn't wash. Other institutions have been forced to remove descrimination and the church should be no different. Why? Because it is the sign of a civilised society.

SF earlier pointed to the orthodoxy of the African Anglican movement for embellishment of his/her view. Well SF, in some African countries, up to half the population is infected with HIV. The churches refusal to promote safe sex and aid efforts to educate on HIV prevention played a major part in taking those countries to the abismal place they find themselves in now. These are the consequences of a literary religious view.

[silverfox]

DJKQ:

"What offends me most about SF's stance is not the continual diatribe that 'marriage' is for men and women only (an argument SF is losing miserably)..."

That is the factual and legal position at the moment so I'm not stating anything that should offend you.

"...but the avoidance of saying why homosexual relationships can not be seen as equal to heterosexual ones.....because that is what is at the core of it..."

My whole position has been that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones (not just seen to be) - they are called Civil Partnerships.

"...SF earlier pointed to the orthodoxy of the African Anglican movement for embellishment of his/her view..."

This was mentioned in the context of the looming schism of the Church of England. The (Western) liberal desire for change regarding women vicars, bishops and gay clergy/marriage will paradoxically lead to the destruction, or fragmentation into sects, of the Anglican community. Some, like sphillips, may regard this as a price worth paying.

"...in some African countries, up to half the population is infected with HIV. The churches refusal to promote safe sex and aid efforts to educate on HIV prevention played a major part in taking those countries to the abismal place they find themselves in now..."

A gross over-simplification of a terrible tragedy

[DJKillaQueen]

Of course it is the legal position but one you do not wish to see change, but have given no sensible reason for opposing. That the government are seeking to change it is the whole reason for this debate, and yes it does offend me that you think that gay marriage is such a threat to the stability of anything. The church does a pretty good job of dividing itself without even considering gays, as it is a continuing battle between orthodoxy and moderation. This is something seen in most religions.

Descrimination against homosexuality in the name of the church though is indefensible and changing the law reagarding marriage would be a step away from that descrimination.....a descrimination you are trying to defend, with predictions of doom for the church and society if it does change. That IS offensive to me. It's almost akin to the argument that nationalists use against immigration. If you let too many immigrants in they'll ruin the social and genetic fabric of the country! If you deliver equality to gays within the CofE it will be the end of marriage and the CofE! ......see how ridiculous both statements are?

Fragmentation is a price worth paying for the greater good, because fragmentation will dilute the power of that institution to persist with descrimination and to destroy lives, because gay children growing up in orthodox religious cultures suffer. There are very good reasons why the suicide rate amongst gay people is almost twice the average and whilst extending rights of marriage to gays won't completely negate that, tackling institutionalised prejudice will send a clear message that religious descrimination and homophobia is no longer acceptable, any more than descrimination is in any other form.

With regards to Africa and HIV, it is not an over simplification to state that one of the most vocal opponents to efforts by the WHO to stem the spread of HIV was the Church in some Africa countries. It is well documented. Of course other factors are at play too but I never said church prejudice was the sole factor, just one of many, but shameful all the same.

You will never have a united global church movement. The culture from nation to nation varies greatly. So it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the CofE should tailor itself to the culture of THIS country....not some far off land where most of us will never go.

[binary_star]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> some gays insist they will not be equal until they

> can be married in a church.

Anyway who wants to get married - marriages are more likely to end in divorce than civil partnerships are to end in dissolution.

[sphillips]

And if the world-wide Anglican Communion were to divide, I doubt that many would really care that much; it?s only held together now through compromises which accepting liberals (in the UK, US and so on?) versus traditionalist conservative African/(some) Asian provinces - all thoroughly detest.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican Communion. Successive Archbishops, traditionalist and liberal (loose terms) all come along with the sticking-plaster, play for time, kick controversy into the long grass by setting up endless commissions, consultations and try to keep it together. They see it as their duty to keep the family united. That?s their job, but a pretty hopeless and thankless task. No wonder Archbishop Rowan has had enough and has decided to return to his books; who can blame him?

I have no sentimental attachment to the world-wide Anglican Communion, and neither, I suspect, do regular or irregular C of E church-goers. The only reason, and I can?t think of any other, that I would seek to avoid a divorce, schism, is that if we liberals go our own way, we desert and betray our sisters and brothers in the pews in Africa and elsewhere who seek equality for women and gay people. And there would be no going back. They?d be on their own ? and pity help them then. The militant gay-haters would be handed a carte blanche to do and preach what they like - and to treat them even more abominably than they do already.

[DJKillaQueen]

Those are valid points too sphilips. The treatment of homosexuals and women in several African countries is shameful. That religious institutions validate that treatment is also shameful.

SF is under the illusion that most christians think the same way but ignores the extremes which are prevalent in some other nations.

SF also thinks that because something is the law as it stands, it can't be offensive. When homosexuality was illegal, that wasn't offensive then. By the same logic, if the law is changed then the church can't possibly be offended either.

[HAL9000]

If only God and His Son could have foreseen the consequences of their Scriptural revelations on the enlightened generations of the future ? they might have been more believable.

[mynamehere]

southwark gay marriage debate wednesday

Southwark is going to debate legalizing gay marriage. Wish they'd show other national leadership but this is a good start.

[Loz]

Look, I'm a supporter of gay marriage, but hasn't the council got better things to do? Like stuff actually within its control?

[mynamehere]

I'm sort of glad they're doing it. Hope it takes less than 5 minutes to just say "yes". I also agree to your point. This will be a fun time waster for them.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it's more of a gesture by the council to show it's support for gay people living within the borough rather than any belief it will influence the outcome of any government proposals. Southwark has shown longstanding support of the LGBT community so it's not out of character for the council to encompass the debate on gay marriage within that realm of support.

[mynamehere]

I just wish they showed leadership on engineering and the shared environment.

[silverfox]

I've written down my guess as to what the result of this 'debate' will be and put it into a sealed envelope.

[DJKillaQueen]

From Southwark council......

The Civil Gay Marriage motion was debated last week on Wednesday 28th March, and of the 63 Southwark councillors (34 Labour, 25 Lib Dems, 3 Conservatives and 1 Independent) about 59 were present for the vote.

The motion was proposed by Cllr Noakes and seconded by a Labour councillor. When the free vote took place all the councillors present voted in favour apart from 7 who abstained.

[Huguenot]

Poor old silverfox, the flames of his witch-hunting torch doused in a raging torrent of reasonable behaviour.

[silverfox]

As suspected and confirmed by my unsealed envelope.

Is a transcript of this debate available? - it would be interesting to see the for and against arguments

[uncleglen]

Have you seen the latest ad on the side of buses from Stonewall? Take note!