Which again makes me ask 'whats the point'.

Well I was not totally aware of that and TBH that would probably be a better place to vent the anger.

Why do I always visualise railways? And a driver in a black latex outfit?

I'll again go back to that we have a situation where a ceremony has been for hetrosexuals only since the time of Constatine which clearly discounts homosexuals.
Why would homosexuals want anything to do with it.

I think you'd have to ask a person who wanted such a religious ceremony that question.

But to put it a different way, if someone wants a religious ceremony (and plenty do, even if they are not remotely religious), why should anyone be denied that?

If someone wants to be married, why not?



TBH, I had been hoping that this thread would be more general and not just be about the cardinal's comments or that particular subject, but about the wider culture of a 'tyranny of intolerance', so to speak.

It's incredibly divisive to refer to one group as being 'in a civil partnership' and another group as being 'married'. That gay couples cannot declare themselves to be 'married' is really the only reason needed to change the law. Just as it would be wrong to refer to white people as 'human' and black people as 'evolved apes' (both are accurate), it is wrong that gay couples have to refer to their marriage as something that implies that it doesn't quite have the same status.

Even if that ceremony is totally opposed to their lives?
Kinda sounds like picking a fight for the sake of it to me which was the horse I came in on.

Glad to help

Why are churches so inflexible that this can't be changed?



Again, why can't the man/woman bit being "high up" the list be changed?

If churches are going to get on their high horses about marriage (and therefore society) being devalued or harmed, they might be better off campaigning against divorce or maybe serial "marryers" like Katie Price etc.

BTW I won't feel at all threatened if a gay couple are allowed to marry.

Change the word that describes a registry office legal partnership then to 'married'.
I just fail to understand why anyone would want to be involved with something that is opposed to them personally.

I can certainly agree with that

I feel you are missing my point.
I have no problems with it.
I just fail to see the logic in it.
Marriage is anti gay yet gays want to get married.
Putting it simply.

But that wouldn't be good enough for the Christian (and non-Christian) bigots. The proposed legislation wouldn't do much more than that anyway. All it would change is to [iallow[/i gay weddings to include religious content and to take place in religious premises. No church or religious organisation would be [icompelled[/i to carry out a gay wedding.



As I said, that's not the only - or even the main - issue.

Simplistically, I would say. Marriage is not, in itself, anti-gay. The religious view of marriage may well be, but I like to think that we should base our laws on reason and evidence, not dogma and superstition. It is unreasonable that a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple, including the right to declare themselves 'married'.

Interesting definition from Wikipedia of all places (so it must be right)

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

That seems to cover everything. That will be why gay people (not "gays"

) want to get married. Because it is a word for a social union that creates kinship and in which interpersonal relationships are acknowledged.

It seems that religious marriage is anti gay, but that brings us back to square one.

I have covered the word 'married' higher up.
I am talking purely about the religious part of it which is anti-homosexual yet homosexuals want to use the religious side of it.
IMHO that makes little sense.

It is the religious part of it that I am talking about TBH.
As for the word 'gays' as soon as I clicked the submit button I knew it was wrong.

Why does a smart like you hold another view?

(PS Does your A**e Smart because of your sexual activities?).

And I have responded: religious groups and other bigots object even to that part of the legislation. They want to keep 'their' word for themselves. This is wrong.



Religions have oppressed women for centuries, yet you still find loads of religious women. None of it makes sense. All the legislation would do is give gay couples the right to include religious content in their services and to marry in a place of worship [iif they can find a place of worship that agrees to perform the ceremony[/i. As that right is available to heterosexual couples it should, nay must, be available to same sex couples.

I hold another view because I do - you haven't answered the question I asked.



Why are you interested?

'Cos I do.

In a nutshell - no.

The question was "Why are you interested?", not "Why, are you interested?"

I don't spend more than a couple of seconds looking at these posts! OK, my more correct answer is that I am not, I was simply being sarcastic in view of your juvenile initial comment about smart bottomed people.

If the Useless invisible sky faerie created Man and woman as the religous bull$ says, why did God allow man and woman to be attracted to their own sex. The Saudi's kept telling me Allah gave man free will. Well, from my experience, Allah can't be that bothered about homosexuality in Saudi Arabia either.. When Allah uses a Padeophile to spread his so called word, it says everything.

Jahweh tried to outdo him by using a whole army of paedophiles to spread his word.

[size=2Yes, I know Allah and Yahweh are the same bloke.[/size

So effectively the Christian religion is saying that it has no place for gay people, will make no provision for them in its ceremonies, and will continue to preach against them as being un-Christian ?

I would not be surprised at all by such a viewpoint actually.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-coles-the-godgiven-dignity-to-which-the-cardinal-is-blind-7536452.html#disqus_threadNot all Christians are saying that.[/url