Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Same sex marriages
With new laws coming in shortly, will they apply to all faiths & their places of worship? I haven't actually read the fine details yet.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DSJ. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the long run I would bet that there will be pressure for the Church to allow gay "marriages". This happened in Denmark in similar circumstances: http://
I put marriage in quotes because, as I explained earlier, I resent a small number of people using the law to change everyday language. We need a new words for "pair bond by law" and its components. Pairage could occur as masculage, feminage or marriage.
I put marriage in quotes because, as I explained earlier, I resent a small number of people using the law to change everyday language. We need a new words for "pair bond by law" and its components. Pairage could occur as masculage, feminage or marriage.
Jonnysid
People wouldn't use those words. They're made up!
Also, wouldnt we need new words for 'wedding', 'husband' and 'wife' when referring to same sex unions?
I suspect the vast majority of the country don't really care one way or the other, as evidenced by the huge variations in for/against in recent opinion polls. Depending on how the question is put, either 71% are in favour of marriage equality or 70% are against it!
I wonder what happened in Canada, where same sex marriage has been enshrined in law for six years? No break down of society there.
People wouldn't use those words. They're made up!
Also, wouldnt we need new words for 'wedding', 'husband' and 'wife' when referring to same sex unions?
I suspect the vast majority of the country don't really care one way or the other, as evidenced by the huge variations in for/against in recent opinion polls. Depending on how the question is put, either 71% are in favour of marriage equality or 70% are against it!
I wonder what happened in Canada, where same sex marriage has been enshrined in law for six years? No break down of society there.
-- answer removed --
"as I explained to you.." - is it possible that you may have explained wrong? My evidence for the contrary view is that everyone is still using "same sex marriage" rather than "marriage" to describe same sex marriage.
I like "pairage" but "pairimony" doesn't sound so good. "Feminage" and "masculage" ... anybody got any better words?
I like "pairage" but "pairimony" doesn't sound so good. "Feminage" and "masculage" ... anybody got any better words?
"is it possible that you may have explained wrong? My evidence for the contrary view is that everyone is still using "same sex marriage" rather than "marriage" to describe same sex marriage. "
Only when it's being discussed as an isolated political issue. It's quite ordinary in everyday life when relevant to hear (say) 'Jack and Ted are married' (even though they are in a CP).
But even that aside, the wider way in which our society imagines valid definitions of marriage has simply come to include same-sex couples. Consider the widespread scepticism you can see everywhere (and which I predict will be borne out in the consultation) towards the CofE's argument that marriage is inherently heterosexual. People do not seem to be buying it anymore. Either way, this is not a case of the government imposing a definition of marriage on society - it's society moving to redefine marriage and the government being a fairly passive tool in the process, with a few particular sections of society opposing it.
Only when it's being discussed as an isolated political issue. It's quite ordinary in everyday life when relevant to hear (say) 'Jack and Ted are married' (even though they are in a CP).
But even that aside, the wider way in which our society imagines valid definitions of marriage has simply come to include same-sex couples. Consider the widespread scepticism you can see everywhere (and which I predict will be borne out in the consultation) towards the CofE's argument that marriage is inherently heterosexual. People do not seem to be buying it anymore. Either way, this is not a case of the government imposing a definition of marriage on society - it's society moving to redefine marriage and the government being a fairly passive tool in the process, with a few particular sections of society opposing it.
"Where does it say in the Bible that people of the same sex can marry?"
Nowhere, to my knowledge. But I don't see how that's relevant.
" Maybe they should create their own religion or one that accepts their views. "
There are actually a fair few liberal-minded Christian churches (like the Unitarians) who are openly in support of same-sex marriage and are very tolerant of homosexuality.
Nowhere, to my knowledge. But I don't see how that's relevant.
" Maybe they should create their own religion or one that accepts their views. "
There are actually a fair few liberal-minded Christian churches (like the Unitarians) who are openly in support of same-sex marriage and are very tolerant of homosexuality.
pdq1
Once again, it has to be said...gays are NOT protesting the right get married in churches.
The change in the law is to allow same sex CIVIL weddings.
Church Of England leaders are arguing that under Human Rights laws, they are open to be sued by gay couples who want to marry in church. This is unlikely to happen - as I've said before...who wants their special day to take place in a venue that absolutely doesn't want you there?
Once again, it has to be said...gays are NOT protesting the right get married in churches.
The change in the law is to allow same sex CIVIL weddings.
Church Of England leaders are arguing that under Human Rights laws, they are open to be sued by gay couples who want to marry in church. This is unlikely to happen - as I've said before...who wants their special day to take place in a venue that absolutely doesn't want you there?
Ummmm is annoyed: "Having a different word makes it appear unequal. "
This is very interesting. Having two words to describe two events or two different occurrences is normal. Surely you can appreciate my irritation that to serve other people's political ideas my language is being controlled even where it is not offensive. Controlled because:
"Having a different word makes it appear unequal. "
OK, you believe you have the moral highground. It may be the case that you do indeed have the moral highground about legal recognition of same sex pairings but changing the language by law is "mission creep".
There is something peculiarly threatening in the assumption that my language should be controlled by people who believe that "Having a different word makes it appear unequal. ". Can you always do this when you believe you have the moral high ground? Where do you stop?
This is a strange sort of gaffer tape that the postmarxists want to stick over our mouths. See: http://
Decent people should fight postmarxism wherever they find it.
This is very interesting. Having two words to describe two events or two different occurrences is normal. Surely you can appreciate my irritation that to serve other people's political ideas my language is being controlled even where it is not offensive. Controlled because:
"Having a different word makes it appear unequal. "
OK, you believe you have the moral highground. It may be the case that you do indeed have the moral highground about legal recognition of same sex pairings but changing the language by law is "mission creep".
There is something peculiarly threatening in the assumption that my language should be controlled by people who believe that "Having a different word makes it appear unequal. ". Can you always do this when you believe you have the moral high ground? Where do you stop?
This is a strange sort of gaffer tape that the postmarxists want to stick over our mouths. See: http://
Decent people should fight postmarxism wherever they find it.
"There is something peculiarly threatening in the assumption that my language should be controlled by people who believe that "Having a different word makes it appear unequal. "
How exactly are your rights being threatened? What are you being prevented from saying? It just so happens that in this day and age most people don't make any real distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, so they want the law to reflect it in a way that it currently doesn't. It is not a case of you, the individual, being pitted against the law - it's about the outcome of a cultural shift in society's attitude toward love and marriage as an institution. I really don't understand how you can pose yourself as being silenced or oppressed somehow.
By the (rather poor) logic I think you're using, the fact that the current system establishes gay equivalents to marriage as separate inhrently oppresses people who wish to use refer to them as the same - a claim which wouldn't make any sense because society has done so anyway and that is why the law is changing.
How exactly are your rights being threatened? What are you being prevented from saying? It just so happens that in this day and age most people don't make any real distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, so they want the law to reflect it in a way that it currently doesn't. It is not a case of you, the individual, being pitted against the law - it's about the outcome of a cultural shift in society's attitude toward love and marriage as an institution. I really don't understand how you can pose yourself as being silenced or oppressed somehow.
By the (rather poor) logic I think you're using, the fact that the current system establishes gay equivalents to marriage as separate inhrently oppresses people who wish to use refer to them as the same - a claim which wouldn't make any sense because society has done so anyway and that is why the law is changing.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|