Which is most immoral ...

[eighthobstruction]

Proof ?

....it may be that there is a typo in RM's post....

[amateur51]

other bigots are available ( I should have added in true BBC style)

[scottycelt]

Somehow, I sense a post from scotty coming on, but perhaps I'm wrong and he's wisely keeping his own counsel here...

Remarkably, your sense is utterly unerring on both counts, ahinton ... scotty's wisdom and counsel are already quite familiar enough here, I'm sure .. though, with all due respect to scotty, he is not exactly unique in that.

[ahinton]

But the very basis of this discussion is precisely prejudice - that of O'Brien and his ilk. I take it that flossie's link to an aspect of the Scottish Household Survey Annual Report 2009/10 and 2001 Census" is not sufficiently verifiable for you.

Well, it's good enough for me, so I take back what I wrote earlier about there being no proof and can make as an admittedly somewhat lame excuse that I ought instead to have written that no proof had (at the time of writing) been supplied rather than that there was none to supply.

[ahinton]

Remarkably, your sense is utterly unerring on both counts, ahinton ... scotty's wisdom and counsel are already quite familiar enough here, I'm sure .. though, with all due respect to scotty, he is not exactly unique in that.

Scotty was a Cath'lic,
Scotty wasn't gay.
Scotty came to our board
And stole our hearts away

(to paraphrase that reprehensible "Taffy was a Welshman" thing)...

Complete at your peril (and at the possible risk of being banned from this forum for so doing)...

[Flosshilde]

Pot...kettle...black ?

If I'm correct in thinking that you mean that MrGG has no business in criticising Cardinal O'Brien over this move, I believe that you have no idea what Mr GG's sexuality is, or that of any of his relatives or friends, so you can have no idea whether it si MrGG's business or not*. However, I've been quite clear on this board about my sexuality, & the Cardinal's views certainly are my business.

[amateur51]

The reality of this move by the Cardinal is that those lesbians and gay men who want equal marriage (nothing special) will call themselves married in spite of what the Cardinal says.

And the contempt that many Catholics and other citizens show for the public utterances of certain senior Catholics (and Anglicans etc etc) will continue to grow. Out of touch barely describes it. In a real sense his ravings have become a recruiting sergeant for equal marriage

[ahinton]

If I'm correct in thinking that you mean that MrGG has no business in criticising Cardinal O'Brien over this move, I believe that you have no idea what Mr GG's sexuality is, or that of any of his relatives or friends, so you can have no idea whether it si MrGG's business or not*. However, I've been quite clear on this board about my sexuality, & the Cardinal's views certainly are my business.

That's as may be, but this is such an important issue that it transcends individuals' sexuality to the extent that it is and will remain a matter of concern to anyone who believes in marriage of any kind.

Anyway, it should be "which is more immoral" rather than "which is most immoral", surely? (and a little harmless pedantry doesn't come amiss if it might help to defuse some of the entrenchments here)...

[amateur51]

That's as may be, but this is such an important issue that it transcends individuals' sexuality to the extent that it is and will remain a matter of concern to anyone who believes in marriage of any kind.

The issue isn't really deepdown about 'marriage' - it's about 'equality'.

And how the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues etc respond will have an impact on how relevant citizens of particular faiths and none will view their significance in the 21st century.

[ahinton]

The issue isn't really deepdown about 'marriage' - it's about 'equality'.

And how the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues etc respond will have an impact on how relevant citizens of particular faiths and none will view their significance in the 21st century.

I suspect that it's about both, actually; atheists and agnostics are, after all, as entitled as anyone to hold - and indeed do hold - views on marriage irrespective of what individual Churches or factions within them might say or seek to do about it.

[Pabmusic]

...[1] Anyway, it should be "which is more immoral" rather than "which is most immoral", surely? (and [2] a little harmless pedantry doesn't come amiss if it might help to defuse some of the entrenchements here)...

[1]
[2]

The issue isn't really deepdown about 'marriage' - it's about 'equality'.

Absolutely, Ams. It reads like an attempt to keep 'marriage' (the eight letters of that particular word) as the special preserve of heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples can have legal status, but they just can't call it by that eight-letter word, else the word would be devalued. A really good basis for an argument.

[Flosshilde]

Anyway, it should be "which is more immoral" rather than "which is most immoral", surely? (and a little harmless pedantry doesn't come amiss if it might help to defuse some of the entrenchements here)...

I know, which is why I changed it in the text of the post.

Entrenchments? We haven't got anywhere like that far yet. Only preliminary skirmishes

[ahinton]

Absolutely, Ams. It reads like an attempt to keep 'marriage' (the eight letters of that particular word) as the special preserve of heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples can have legal status, but they just can't call it by that eight-letter word, else the word would be devalued. A really good basis for an argument.

...but too restrictive a premise for one, I submit; couples of the opposite sex who cohabit or otherwise commit themselves to one another without entering into marriage contracts also have certain legal rights and status as a direct consequence of that level of commitment by each partner to the other, even though, despite those rights and that status having increased somewhat in recent times, they remain by no means as extensive as those enjoyed by married couples. Any "equality" argument needs therefore to include issues of same-sex and opposite-sex couples who cohabit and/or otherwise commit themselves to one another outside of the institution of marriage, otherwise the conclusions reached and the premises upon which they'd be based would be misleadingly confined; furthermore, any such argument should also take due account of those aspects of marital and non-marital commitment that are specifically about legal status and those which are not but which are nevertheless essential founding components of all such relationships. Indeed, all of this needs duly to be considered in its own right before meaningful consideration can be given to the question of organised attempts on the part of Churches or other institutions to interfere with possible changes in legal status that might affect any aspect of this matter, not just that of gay marriage, pre-nup law being just one possible example.

[ahinton]

Entrenchments? We haven't got anywhere like that far yet. Only preliminary skirmishes

Really? Blimey! I'd better duck out of the way prontissimo, then, before any of the real ones come along!