I didn't make any such argument so quit with the straw man arguments




If you want to ban a group of people from doing something (i.e get married) then the onus in the person wishing to ban of group from doing something to provide a reason for why that should be the case. The reasons that are cited for why gay people should not be allowed to get married do not stand up to any sort of rational scrutiny. Also another reason why gay people should not be prevented from marriage is that it marriage would make them happy without infringing upon the freedom of others and without requiring the discrimination of others groups.




Once again you resort to a straw man. I never cited this as a reason why I support same sex marriage merely as a reason why same sex marriage is not comparable to marriage between siblings. I'm not sure whether you are incapable of following a simple argument or if you are being deliberately disingenuous but you seem to have trouble properly representing the arguments of those you are responding to ask can be seen from your earlier response to El Barbudo.



I've never said anti discrimination is my sole reason for why I support gay marriage. I, like many other supporters of gay marriage have other reasons for supporting gay marriage.

Well, the civil ceremony does not claim sanctity, only the 'religious' ceremony does and so yes, that would be the case. Have you attended a civil marriage? No religious input is allowed. It is purely a legal contract.


Indeed they should. Marriage as we have known it in the UK was a Christian invention to start with. There were other coupling festivals prior to the arrival of Christianity to the British Isles. Given this background then it is perfectly legitimate for Christians to protest at this development.

For once we seem to be in agreement and I think that this is right at the core of the disagreements, the process of and even the word "marriage" is seen exclusively as a religious ceremony by those who hold their religion as something important in their lives, whilst every other form of union that does not take place with a religious blessing is a legal process, but not a marriage in their terms.

I don't have a problem with that attitude, I don't agree with it necessarily but its harmless and changes nothing, nor does the proposed change to the same sex marriage law for no church of any denomination will be forced to conduct marriages that do not conform with their idea of what a marriage should be, ins hort, they can continue to discriminate if they so wish and if their religion instructs them to.

Thats fine.

It needs to be a crystal clear as that, "We won't marry gay people in our churches" is all thats needed from religious orders, no straw man arguments, no dancing around the issue, just come out and say it and we'll all carry on as normal but with a clear distinction of what each of the various flavours of church is all about.

What do you mean by marriage? Do you mean the ceremony itself SaintsFan or something else being a Christian invention?

If marriage is "Christian" do we ban every other religious marriage?

This is of course if we ignore the fact marriage started a millennium before religion as we know it.

Anyway who gives a , in at a few years time it will be legal.

I just hope the homophobes will be around to see it and cry into their wafer and wine.

Or even the non-religious ones.



Indeed.

I think the point is that in this argument, in this country, the Christian church of various denominations have claimed the exclusive use of the word "marriage" as their own and that the civil form of the legal process is a diminished version of the thing, hence the "added value" of being in a Christian church (the Tesco Clubcard effect)

Problem is of course is that if all churches limited themselves to only marrying those who were regular attendees then they would very quickly find themselves unable to support many of their buildings, which as a non-religious person I would actually find quite sad because religion aside, the churches in the past have provided us with some fekkin good architecture.

Blimey, this argument has become very contorted.
All we are seeing is a bill which will allow marriage between those who can legally have sex.
Simple as that.

If sex between consenting adult brothers were legal, I personally would have no objections to them marrying, if they so wished.
Why? Because I don't see who would be harmed by it.
If someone can point out where the harm is, I might change my mind.

I must say though, it is great fun reading Dally and Kirkstaller' s increasingly convoluted "what if"s.

Just to annoy them, I'll add a couple more views which are off-topic really but, as the two if them seem somewhat fixated with what other people do with their genitals, here goes ...

Polygamy, hmmm , depends if you can sort out the issues and legalities around consent from all parties involved and inheritance.
Bestiality, nope, most animals cannot be considered to be sentient consenting adults plus there may well be genuine health issues.

Could this not be challenged if it could be proven that as tax payers we contributed to the up keep of the buildings?

Not to mention how the church made their money in the first place.

Absolutely, although I suspect that they'd argue that they are public buildings providing a public service - use it or not you can still walk into any church and have a look around or even, if you so desire, go ask for help.