Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[scottycelt]

I see no reason why civil partnerships should not be available for couples of opposite sexes who do not wish to marry .

A lot of religious groups I imagine would regard it as more likely to undermine marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Indeed they might, but that has nothing to do with the fact that heterosexuals are officially discriminated against in this regard. As I've pointed out before (with little or no response) there are 'gays' who are themselves against the idea of marriage ... http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/ ... It works both ways!

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have ceremonies currently exclusive to themselves which seems perfectly fair and equitable as neither encroaches on the other. In any case, I thought you were so disgusted by some of the facts presented here that you had decided to retire 'hurt' from this thread.

Instead of casually accusing other forum members of 'bigotry' and 'ignorance' you might be well advised to do a little bit of legal research yourself ... it's not really that difficult, it's all there on Google...

.

[MrGongGong]

Hummmm

So can I convert my civil marriage to a "civil partnership" then ?
because its got F all to do with any "church" and their ridiculous demand to police my language
and if I could would I still have the same rights with regard to my children and next of kin in every other country I visit ?

[Barbirollians]

Hummmm

So can I convert my civil marriage to a "civil partnership" then ?
because its got F all to do with any "church" and their ridiculous demand to police my language
and if I could would I still have the same rights with regard to my children and next of kin in every other country I visit ?

Mr GG - That is why I imagine the churches who resist same sex marriage would I am sure hate opposite sex civil partnerships even more . I know several unmarried couples who would very much like to have the security for tax , succession , pension rights etc without having to get married.

[amateur51]

Your phrase 'should allow them to treat people as second-class citizens' is emotive, irrational and not based on any facts ....your own prejudices and value-judgements coming to the fore.

Had you followed the course of Parliamentary debates in the Commons & Lords since 1967, and outside Parliament, you would know that there have been many speeches made by Christians which are just as Flossie has described. It is only in the last few years that any sort of parity has been achieved.

Power is rarely given up, RM - most often it has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the powerful ... and they never like it.

Having said that, there have been many Christians who have supported the movement for the emancipation of lesbuians and gay men so I wouldn't want you to think that I am tarring all Christians with the same brush

[Flosshilde]

Now we are not talking about the law if we start talking about 'fundamental human rights'. It seems to me that you are advocating that the fundamental rights of gays transcends the fundamental human rights of a Christian. Neither should be above other.

So how do you square that particular circle, when one groups 'rights' conflict with another's? Given that there must be many Christians who have no problem conducting Civil Partnerships it would seem to me that Christian beliefs are flexible, and very personal in that the individual can decide what they do & not do, so not so much fundamental as adopted. Unlike what surely must be fundamental - the right to receive the same treatment as the rest of society.

[Pabmusic]

So how do you square that particular circle, when one groups 'rights' conflict with another's? Given that there must be many Christians who have no problem conducting Civil Partnerships it would seem to me that Christian beliefs are flexible, and very personal in that the individual can decide what they do & not do, so not so much fundamental as adopted. Unlike what surely must be fundamental - the right to receive the same treatment as the rest of society.

You are absolutely correct. Talk of 'fundamental rights' clouds the issue, since those would apply equally to everyone. However, there is no fundamental right for one group to 'own' marriage or to determine its definition. In any case, Christians do not 'own' marriage as it is, since (in the UK anyway) marriage is a civil procedure, not a religious one. Different religions may conduct their different ceremonies, but the procedure has to comply with the civil law.

[scottycelt]

Had you followed the course of Parliamentary debates in the Commons & Lords since 1967, and outside Parliament, you would know that there have been many speeches made by Christians which are just as Flossie has described. It is only in the last few years that any sort of parity has been achieved.

Power is rarely given up, RM - most often it has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the powerful ... and they never like it.

Having said that, there have been many Christians who have supported the movement for the emancipation of lesbuians and gay men so I wouldn't want you to think that I am tarring all Christians with the same brush

Okay, okay, we know you frequently say such nice and delightful things about Christians, so that was never really in any doubt, amsey ...

In the real world, I take it you will now support the 'emancipation' of multiple persons to get married to each other? It has already happened in Brazil and has its fans here as well. I've made sure I carefully link one of these straight out of our very own Forum Bible, amsey.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple

What/Whoever next will roll up for this really fun and cool thing called 'marriage' ... Three Men & A Boat ?

[scottycelt]

You are absolutely correct. Talk of 'fundamental rights' clouds the issue, since those would apply equally to everyone. However, there is no fundamental right for one group to 'own' marriage or to determine its definition. In any case, Christians do not 'own' marriage as it is, since (in the UK anyway) marriage is a civill procedure, not a religious one. Different religions conduct their different ceremonies, but the procedure has to comply with the civil law.

So what you are basically saying is that individuals/groups must have no 'fundamental rights' (as these 'cloud the issue') and the State (in the form of civil law) must control every aspect of our lives even to the point of changing the traditional meaning of words?

So the traditional meaning of the word 'black' can suddenly be changed to identify the colour 'white' instead?

Have I really understood your point correctly, Pab ... ?

[Pabmusic]

...Have I really understood your point correctly, Pab ... ?

No, you haven't (I rather suspect you expected that I'd give that response).

What I mean is:

1. Groups do not have 'fundamental rights' - individuals do;

2. Fundamental rights apply to everybody - not just to the members of one group;

3. No group has a monopoly on the definition of marriage (subject to 6 below);

4. In the UK, 'marriage' is a civil act regulated by law (and has been since at least 1836);

5. Different religious groups conduct marriages in different ways, but all ceremonies must include the civil element for the marriage to be lawful.

6. (I didn't include this above.) The only body in the UK that can define legal marriage is Parliament.

[scottycelt]

No, you haven't (I rather suspect you expected that I'd give that response).

What I mean is:

1. Groups do not have 'fundamental rights' - individuals do;

2. Fundamental rights apply to everybody - not just to the members of one group;

3. No group has a monopoly on the definition of marriage (subject to 6 below);

4. In the UK, 'marriage' is a civil act regulated by law (and has been since at least 1836);

5. Different religious groups conduct marriages in different ways, but all ceremonies must include the civil element for the marriage to be lawful.

6. (I didn't include this above.) The only body in the UK that can define legal marriage is Parliament.

I accept points 1, 2, 4 & 5 as being wholly accurate.

I'm not sure I accept your use of the word 'monopoly' in 3). As far as I'm aware there has (until recent times) been only one definition of 'marriage' ... the official union of man + woman ... different terms and conditions in different cultures and traditions certainly but only ONE definition. The same applies to say the word 'passenger' on any form of transport ... same meaning everywhere but different terms and conditions of travel from company to company, country to country. Would you deem it appropriate if Parliament suddenly changed the definition of 'passenger' to include 'pedestrian' on similar grounds of equality and non-discrimination?

As for 6), Parliament certainly has the right to alter the terms and conditions of civil marriage, but it now proposes to go much further than that and change the ONE meaning of the word to something entirely different.

By all means it can create a new word for the 'entirely different' but what gives it the 'right' to meddle with our common language and a centuries-old singular meaning of one particular word... will others now follow?

If that's not getting dangerously close to Orwellian-style "social engineering" I'm Flosshilde ...

[Pabmusic]

...As for 6), Parliament certainly has the right to alter the terms and conditions of civil marriage, but it now proposes to go much further than that and change the ONE meaning of the word to something entirely different.

By all means it can create a new word for the 'entirely different' but what gives it the 'right' to meddle with our common language and a centuries-old singular meaning of one particular word... will others now follow?

If that's not getting dangerously close to Orwellian-style "social engineering" I'm Flosshilde ...

I could never confuse you with Flossie, Scotty, however much you are socially engineered

As to Parliament, despite what Ukip might say, under our constitution it is supreme. In other words it can do exactly as it pleases - unlike the government ('the Crown'), which is subject to Parliament. Of course, there are consequences if it takes certain measures, but it can do so.

What is proposed is a big change, but that's no reason why it can't happen.

[scottycelt]

I could never confuse you with Flossie, Scotty, however much you are socially engineered

As to Parliament, despite what Ukip might say, under our constitution it is supreme. In other words it can do exactly as it pleases - unlike the government ('the Crown'), which is subject to Parliament. Of course, there are consequences if it takes certain measures, but it can do so.

What is proposed is a big change, but that's no reason why it can't happen.

I agree entirely with that, Pab!

On a point of accuracy, does not Parliament (led by the largest party) normally require an election mandate from the people before it is entitled to introduce change of this sort?

Is Parliament not the 'servant of the people' or is the exact opposite now the case?

Anyway, have to go now ... duty beckons.

I enjoy our occasional little jousts. You debate calmly, and without insult and rancour, which is somewhat refreshing

And, apart from that, I'm actually now thoroughly enjoying being on the commonly-arranged 'ignore' list of some of our regular and more strident contributors ... ah, the peaceful bliss ... can it possibly last?

[Pabmusic]

I agree entirely with that, Pab!

On a point of accuracy, does not Parliament (led by the largest party) normally require an election mandate from the people before it is entitled to introduce change of this sort?

Is Parliament not the 'servant of the people' or is the exact opposite now the case?...

Yes, of course you're right in practice (thank goodness) - sort of...

The supremacy of Parliament was established by the Restoration (inviting Charles II as king), the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 (inviting William and Mary to come on its terms) and several subsequent Acts. In practice nowadays, the 'will of the people' is important, though we didn't have referendums (for instance) at all before the 1970s, so it's difficult to agree that an election would 'normally' be required. Parliament has to approve measures introduced (usually) by the Government, and presumably would take into account whether there was a mandate or not - of course, that might require MPs ignoring party whips. Democracy in action, I'm afraid.

...I enjoy our occasional little jousts. You debate calmly, and without insult and rancour, which is somewhat refreshing...

I have to watch my blood pressure, so I have to be calm.

[amateur51]

Okay, okay, we know you frequently say such nice and delightful things about Christians, so that was never really in any doubt, amsey ...

In the real world, I take it you will now support the 'emancipation' of multiple persons to get married to each other? It has already happened in Brazil and has its fans here as well. I've made sure I carefully link one of these straight out of our very own Forum Bible, amsey.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple

What/Whoever next will roll up for this really fun and cool thing called 'marriage' ... Three Men & A Boat ?

Frankly scotty your constant undignified wriggling is getting to be beneath contempt

[MrGongGong]

What/Whoever next will roll up for this really fun and cool thing called 'marriage' ... Three Men & A Boat ?

That's the daft reasoning of many religionists in the media who seem quite able to redefine things to suit their own way of seeing things but not able to imagine that the rest of us don't share their fixed ideas.