With Scotland doing the right thing do you think it will be long till the rest of the UK does the same? Surely there isn't too much resistance to this nowadays that it would be such a controversial issue?
The Catholic Church are making a few noises about it up here but they are either being ignored whilst again showing how out of touch they are with the folk on the ground. The new arch-Bishop of Glasgow linked homosexuality with early death and he has been backed up by others within the Church up here. Just driving folk away!
going to happen eventually, I suppose. It's all silly on both sides though, really. The church's stance is obviously bollocks, but they can believe whatever nonsense they want, shouldnt affect anybody else, but I also wonder why on earth gay people would want any part of a conservative institution like marriage, or want a reluctant church to approve
They don't want the church to approve (well they might, but this is not what is happening in Scotland). They are creating legal equality in marriage instead of the previously created civil partnership for gays. The church doesn't have to marry homosexuals but the state can and they will be married like any heterosexual couple getting married by the state.
Well it is. Marriage is a religious/god type thing. State weddings are for tax and legal reasons. Get your history sortedand you pipe down. The church invented it, its their thing, they can do what they want with it. Its like the olympics, its just a word but you try putting on a sports show with that word attached.
I agree, the church should believe whatever it wants. As are the population of this country. In a democracy, people can hold whatever view they wish. As long as it isn't forced on others and doesn't cause anyone any harm. Which is why homsexuals should be allowed to marry. There's a black man in the white house, we had a female prime minister 30 years ago. It's just not an issue that should be debated. What difference does it make?
It'll be a long time before we see a gay prime minister though. And when we do they will most likely be a tory and there's nothing worse than a conservative homosexual. with their gingham shirts, gilets and suede prada slip-ons.
Haha I've quite mixed feelings on the Church tbh. I don't go to church or anything but I'm culturally Catholic and what with the years of discrimination in Scotland that community is pretty diverse, more than a few left-leaning Catholics who are pretty much against a lot of the Church teachings. Strange balance there.
But on issues like this it's clear as day the Church are trying to influence the state and have rightly been told to get to fuck.
I've been deleting those on my facebook who have been banging on about how this is going to ruin the sanctity of marriage. Shut the eff up.
If you are looking for gigs to play, or bands to play gigs - visit www.bandwagongigs.com - www.facebook.com/bandwagongigs
"Well it is. Marriage is a religious/god type thing. State weddings are for tax and legal reasons. Get your history sortedand you pipe down. The church invented it, its their thing, they can do what they want with it. Its like the olympics, its just a word but you try putting on a sports show with that word attached."
You are talking out of your ass. The church didn't invent marriage, nor is marriage a religious/god sort of thing. Marriage today is a legal contract, thus the fact you have to buy a marriage license. Historically, marriage for many was a business arrangement between families, and in some places it still is, which is why some cultures still do arranged marriages. The church stuck their nose into marriage primarily because there was money to be made.
Milklover: 'Well it is. Marriage is a religious/god type thing. State weddings are for tax and legal reasons. Get your history sortedand you pipe down. The church invented it, its their thing, they can do what they want with it. Its like the olympics, its just a word but you try putting on a sports show with that word attached.'
There is so much wrong with this post that it's difficult to know where to start!
Firstly, marriage, as an institution, has existed across multiple societies and cultures. Yes, ancient Israeli nomadic tribes practiced the ritual, but so too did the Ancient Greeks and Romans, while Chinese society has carried out marriages since 400BC. So don't try to claim that Christianity somehow has a monopoly on marriage.
This leads nicely to my second point: there is, of course, no one unified Christian Church. Rather, we have lots of denominations, each with interpretations that often contradict each other. Certainly, the Catholic Church, The Church of Scotland and The Church of England have been very critical of plans to introduce gay marriage but there are always dissenting voices from within congregations and Church leadership itself over a particular denomination's stance on the issue. There are even Churches which will perform marriages for homosexual couples such as the Lutheran Church of Sweden and The United Church of Canada!
The fact that followers of the same religion can reach such wildly different conclusions is, of course, because they are trying to create a set of rules from reading the Bible, a notoriously ambiguous religious text that has been edited and re-edited and translated and mistranslated countless times over the past several thousand years. Most of the opposition stems from an obscure set of rules codified in the book of Leviticus (which include forbidding men from associating with women who are on their periods, and from eating shellfish) and from a letter written by St Paul in the New Testament. As ever, people are quick to interpret the Bible to support their own prejudices and beliefs.
Lastly, yes marriage is not the constant, unchanging institution you make it out to be. Marriage used to be little more than a legal contract to ensure the transfer of property from a woman's father to her husband. Until recently, it wasn't uncommon for a man to hardly know the woman he was marrying! Furthermore, if the wife found herself trapped in an abusive or otherwise unhappy marriage, she was pretty much screwed, as divorce was next to impossible. The justification for this? 'It says so in the Bible'.
Thankfully, we as a society have moved on and such ideas seem appalling to us. Christianity has to understand that, once again, times are changing. When my parents were growing up, homosexuals were ostracized. Hell, until 1967 it was illegal for two consenting men to have sex in private! Marriage as a concept has grown and evolved over time and the Church's opposition to marrying two gay people is, frankly, disgusting. They are using threats to try and bully their way into maintaining the status quo - that is, an archaic and outdated piece of legislation that stipulates only a man and a woman can marry. These religious leaders and their congregations are actively trying to uphold inequality and halt societal progress. Hopefully our children will look back on them with the same contempt as we hold for those who actively fought against repealing the Jim Crow segregationist laws and opposed women's suffrage.
I should probably add that I personally do not see the point in marriage. As someone said elsewhere, I've been with my partner for a long time now (6 years) and we have no intention of marrying because it is an institution we are both very uncomfortable with (as pair of atheists and feminists). However, because we are a straight couple, it is an institution we can opt out of. I think it is just as important that people have the right to opt in if they want (regardless of what genitals they have between their legs) and this is why I support marriage equality.
Well, since the UK consists of multiple states, which would you like? Theoretically, England might be considered a Christian state, however clearly that is only on paper. All other UK states are secular.
The 1753 Marriage Act was a way for the state to legislate which unions between couples were official and which weren't. Prior to that act, people could get married in a variety of ways - verbal contracts, small/private ceremonies/rituals/customs. By bringing up the 1753 Marriage Act, you undermine your argument that the Church has always somehow 'owned' marriage. If anything, the Marriage Act brings up the sheer arbitrariness of the decision to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage ceremonies. What if the law had said upper class women could not marry lower class men? Or the blacks could not marry whites?
I don't see the relevance of bringing up the Marriage Act because the whole point of the debate is that allowing homosexual couples to marry will necessarily bring about a change in the law. Are you seriously arguing that laws should immutable, that we should not alter and amend them when they are found to be lacking?
Bit tangential but is anyone actually weird about period sex then? Most it's ever been a thing for me is being given a heads up that I might not want to venture south, but no one is freaked out by it are they?
I was put off since, when 20 and working in corfu i took a girl back to the apartment, got down to it, but stopped when i found the white tail sitcking out. I thought and said to her, right we don't need this, and pulled it out, only to release the most hellish smell i'd ever smelt.
I know, all girls are different, and not all period discharge smells like a rotten corpse, but that was a game-changer as far as period sex was concerned. And I'm far from squeamish.
"I fine, i fine, bloomy charlie my country is shaken. .org loves me, please send money and bad jumpers to save stanza"