Marriage

[ahinton]

Ahinton, now leaving other issues aside and on a point of fact, no new law has yet been passed. The bill has still some way to go before (and if) it ever becomes law.

That is, of course, technically correct, although I would submit that the chances of it collapsing in ruins as a consequence of its being rejected by HoL (whose own reform has, after all, only been postponed) seem pretty slim; the majority in favour, after all, was hardly a mere hair's breadth!

Therefore, the current legal situation regarding the definition of marriage is exactly the same as it was yesterday afternoon.

But when this Bill does indeed become law it will still be so because, as I said, that law makes no difference to the legal status of the opposite-sex marriage that you describe as "traditional" and, as I observed to Mr Pee, it makes same-sex marriage a legal possibility, not legally compulsory!

[Nick Armstrong]

the worst sort of legal mumbo-jumbo

:yikes:

Present company excepted, I trust ...? :whistle: :winkeye:

[MrGongGong]

I don't know
I hear about something that will cheer up many people and is long overdue and all this nonsense starts
I really can't understand how some folks are so insecure to see this as a huge "problem"
I really can't see what this has got to do with the church(es) at all , no one is suggesting that it's compulsory

and as for the ridiculous "redefining words" argument I did think it was some kind of joke :laugh:

Civil partnerships are NOT recognised as being equal to marriage , gay people are equal to heterosexuals therefore they should be allowed to marry
and are the folks banging on about "traditional marriage" aware that in some communities it's a phrase that indicates a predilection for certain types of sexual relationships ?(put delicately :laugh: see also 1950's housewife )

It's NOT going to signal the end of the world as we know it , get over it

one question is

this

Marriage has always been defined in terms of a union between a woman and a man. To be legitimate (in English law at least) it requires consummation.

Is that TRUE or just "received wisdom" ?


Music used to be defined as a single line then , guess what, harmony , serialism, death metal, leider etc

[Mandryka]

I don't know
I hear about something that will cheer up many people and is long overdue and all this nonsense starts
I really can't understand how some folks are so insecure to see this as a huge "problem"
I really can't see what this has got to do with the church(es) at all , no one is suggesting that it's compulsory

and as for the ridiculous "redefining words" argument I did think it was some kind of joke :laugh:

You titled this thread 'good news'. I've no idea how old you are, but anyone old enough to be posting on this forum should be aware that any news is rarely unambiguously 'good' (or, come to that, bad).

Leaving aside some peoples' religious objections (which the atheists on this forum seem happy to either mock or make light of), there is the additional concern that this will now make church functionaries who object to homosexual wedlock vulnerable to charges of 'homophobia' - if they would prefer not to officiate at homosexual marriage 'ceremonies' or have their churches used for such a purpose.

I see that the appalling 'Stonewall' group is up to its nasty tricks: threatening to 'out' the closeted homosexual Tory MPs who voted against the bill. Are homosexuals, closeted or otherwise, supposed to walk in lock-step behind this proposed legislation?

Oddly enough, the usually noxious Peter Tatchell has distinguished himself over this issue this good deed should lift him a couple of rungs in hell.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tatchell-backs-man-who-opposed-gay-marriage-8217347.html

[MrGongGong]

Mandy

have you always been so unpleasant ?
Objecting to equality IS wrong regardless of whatever sky fairy nonsense you choose to dress it up in
no one is forcing the church to marry gay people
they can make up another word if they like

I'm sure the churches can work out what to do , they have had enough time to think about it.

[Mandryka]

Mandy

have you always been so unpleasant ?
Objecting to equality IS wrong regardless of whatever sky fairy nonsense you choose to dress it up in
no one is forcing the church to marry gay people
they can make up another word if they like

I'm sure the churches can work out what to do , they have had enough time to think about it.

I suspect you find any viewpoints other than your own 'unpleasant'. You represent that most modern of phenomena: a bigot masquerading as a 'liberal'.

[Bryn]

... 'liberall.'

http://www.wordnik.com/words/liberall

[Mandryka]

http://www.wordnik.com/words/liberall

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8E_tTgPDTo/UEHrYbHJqxI/AAAAAAAAEr8/YjOrXeI-gRo/s1600/If+you+can%27t+win+an+argument,+correct+their+grammar+instead.jpg

...or typo, in this case. :)

[Ferretfancy]

I've been trying to track back to the person who wrote that homosexual relationships were usually brief, and there would a more frequent increase in civil partnership dissolutions.
I only have a figure for 2011, but in that year 2.2% of male partnerships were dissolved, and 4.6% of female partnerships. We would expect to see a slow rise over the years since 2005, but it would seem that these figures compare favourably with heterosexual divorce.
All break ups are painful, but the implication that gay relationships are always fickle is obviously false-I should know after fifty two years.

[Bryn]

Typo and grammar, surely. Look at the position of the full stop in relation to the closing single quote mark.

Where's the argument? I see mainly bigoted assertions in what you dump here. Still, there's little attempt at masquerade, I suppose.

[Flosshilde]

the worst sort of legal mumbo-jumbo,

Which suggests there is a best sort - any examples, P?

[Flosshilde]

You represent that most modern of phenomena: a bigot masquerading as a 'liberal'.

Whereas you don't bother with the masquerade.

[Mandryka]

Typo and grammar, surely. Look at the position of the full stop in relation to the closing single quote mark.

Where's the argument? I see mainly bigoted assertions in what you dump here. Still, there's little attempt at masquerade, I suppose.

Many thanks for your kind help in drawing my attention to typos and punctuation (not grammar). They have now been corrected, rendering your 'contributions' to this thread, like most of your contributions to this forum, redundant.

Extremely impressive to see you taking an interest in this discussion, though, considering that the only close relationships of any kind you seem to have are with bits of hi-fi equipment which have the great advantage (to you) of never answering back. What a funny (peculiar and ha-ha) little man you are....

[Mandryka]

Whereas you don't bother with the masquerade.

I don't need to.

[Bryn]

... 'liberall.'

In this instance the punctuation disrupts the grammar of the sentence the quote is extracted from.

Your sad little attempt at spite is not worthy of further comment.