More Meddling idiots

**Flosshilde** · 04-03-12, 12:16

It's difficult to know how to respond to such a farrago of half (to be generous)-truths & nonsense (I'm referring to O'Brien's piece, not MrGG), & I've got better things to do (like the washing up). But no doubt Scotty will be along soon to sing O'Brien's praises

**teamsaint** · 04-03-12, 13:58

Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post

It's difficult to know how to respond to such a farrago of half (to be generous)-truths & nonsense (I'm referring to O'Brien's piece, not MrGG), & I've got better things to do (like the washing up). But no doubt Scotty will be along soon to sing O'Brien's praises

those in power (politicians, the Vatican etc) just love to use these issues to distract us.

Pity they don't let people get on with their private lives, and use their influence to attack the REAL problems in society...........

only trouble is the people at the top are already in the pockets of the big money organisations.

**Ferretfancy** · 04-03-12, 14:49

We seem to be back to the pre-Section 28 arguments about authorities forcing gay literature into schools etc. etc, and all the other lies that organisations like Stonewall have had to fight. I don't want to feel it, but I am now completely of the opinion that the churches, and the catholic church in particular, are sworn enemies of loving kindness. To me, organised religion of any kind taints everything it touches, from the massacres in Rwanda ( partly carried out by priests) to the sectarian evils in the Muslim world and the Baptist bigotry of the American South.
Fortunately for us in Britain, church attendance is still falling as the likes of O'Brien peddle their trash.

And yes, scotty, I'm enraged, so don't bother to reply.

**MrGongGong** · 04-03-12, 15:00

I was particularly struck with this from the Cardinal

"If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?"

I hope the same thing that would happen if a teacher peddled the idea that black people were inferior to white, that women should always defer to men and that god created the world in 6 days ! We really don't want these people working with children !

**french frank** · 04-03-12, 15:21

What, in terms of legal rights, would be the difference between marriage and civil partnership? I'm not making a point of any kind, simply asking for information from those who have gone into these matters in more detail.

**Flosshilde** · 04-03-12, 15:39

I should be able to answer that, but I can't. What I can say is that when civil partnerships were proposed the churches were adament that it should not be recognised as 'marriage'. In other words, lesbians & gay men were to be regarded as 'seperate' from heterosexuals - in effect, as second-class citizens. The arguments that wsere put forward by the churches then are the same as they are now. So far, civilization hasn't collapsed.

Withe regards to the cardinal's question about the teacher who wantedx to tell pupils that marriage was between a man & a woman; the teacher would be factually wrong, just as he or she would be if they told pupils that god created the world.

**Pianorak** · 04-03-12, 15:45

Originally posted by french frank View Post

What, in terms of legal rights, would be the difference between marriage and civil partnership? I'm not making a point of any kind, simply asking for information from those who have gone into these matters in more detail.

Google came up with this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...l-partnerships

More definitive? http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk..._law08_ch2.pdf

**Flosshilde** · 04-03-12, 15:45

To correct one of the Cardinal's factual errors, the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' says nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman:

"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. "

It also doesn't say that marriage is the basis of society, just that the family is:
"(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "

**teamsaint** · 04-03-12, 15:52

here is another issue that we really shouldn't have to worry about.........but now we do.

Wonder who funds this kind of "research" (or opinion masquerading as research)?

404

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

**Lateralthinking1** · 04-03-12, 16:28

Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

here is another issue that we really shouldn't have to worry about.........but now we do.

I could have read the last article and said Oxford University without seeing any reference to it. There is a strand of opinion there that I have alluded to before which someone like Pilger really needs to watch.

The story dovetails in with the huge efforts being made at that establishment to change the law in regard to death and body parts. Most such parts cannot be reused at the time a death can currently be certified, hence regular research indicating that people should be certified dead while alive and then have their organs removed for medical use. I heard about it first on The Moral Maze.

As for marriage, it isn't what it was. Having seen umpteen divorces occurring recently among family and friends, what is clear to me is that lawyers are the major beneficiaries. Commitment is all for the good - and in terms of social cohesion essential - but people can be together for years outside marriage and then separate after one year of being wed. To relationships, it can be a noose.

There was a long period when marriage among heterosexuals became unfashionable. Whatever is happening now, that will still be the long term trend. Once most gay people wouldn't have wanted to have anything to do with it but given the current spats, marriage may turn into a predominantly gay institution. Fair enough to an extent but if that is the case, divorce will become so too.

**Ferretfancy** · 04-03-12, 16:59

My civil partner and I have no special wish to be married, but there are many same sex couples who think it important to them, whether in religious symbolism, or as a more outward form of recognition.
Since we are both atheists, walking up the aisle is not an option, but for those who wish it, why not ? We waited nearly fifty years together to achieve legal security, and now that has been achieved why not the icing on the wedding cake for those who need the sugar and marzipan?

Incidentally, the civil partnership legislation does make provision for divorce. I think it's termed dissolution. We went to a Stonewall briefing just before the change in the law was completed, and were told that the grounds for separation would be the same as for divorce, with the exception of adultery. Why? Well, adultery is formally defined in law, which would have to be changed, and a requirement is that one of the correspondents must possess a vagina. A couple of lesbian ladies asked " What about us? " and were told " No good, you've got two "

**french frank** · 04-03-12, 17:13

Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post

In other words, lesbians & gay men were to be regarded as 'seperate' from heterosexuals - in effect, as second-class citizens.

Perhaps all non-religious/civil ceremonies should be regarded as civil partnerships? Would that make a difference?

"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I think that might be a legal loophole rather than a statement of a basic human right. It says 'without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion', but doesn't say there might not be other limitations. In fact, aren't the rights of 12-15 year olds being infringed by insisting that both parties should be 'of full age'?

**Lateralthinking1** · 04-03-12, 17:19

Ferretfancy - "Options for optimists" is good.

However, I have just googled the word "marriage". Google says that it dates back to the 13th century. It also says "some say" that it is the wedding ceremony that makes a marriage but God’s word in Genesis 2:24 is that it is "the joining of flesh" that makes it or, more precisely, it is that which makes "a union".

So if you take out the "man" and "woman" references, anyone could have a gathering around a sunset and a cake. It would be no less biblical than having church bells.

**Serial_Apologist** · 04-03-12, 17:28

Originally posted by Ferretfancy View Post

Incidentally, the civil partnership legislation does make provision for divorce. I think it's termed dissolution. We went to a Stonewall briefing just before the change in the law was completed, and were told that the grounds for separation would be the same as for divorce, with the exception of adultery. Why? Well, adultery is formally defined in law, which would have to be changed, and a requirement is that one of the correspondents must possess a vagina. A couple of lesbian ladies asked " What about us? " and were told " No good, you've got two "

Well I never........!!!

I know this is serious, but honestly, you've got to laugh sometimes..

More Meddling idiots

More Meddling idiots

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment