Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

To quote Philip K Dick: Reality is that which, when we cease to believe in it, still exists!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Oh well if that's *ALL* you're asking for...!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OK all, I rarely start off threads that have direct religious connotations, but the 'gay marriage' thread really is getting waaaay off topic. I'm having trouble wading through posts discussing Evolution, homosexual union, fascism and the definition of truth, reason and belief all in the same thread.

So, can I respectfully suggest that we move discussion of the theory of our origins to this new thread - a lot of valid points and questions have been raised that deserve discussion with out distraction, I think. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Of course that option is open to you, but with the views you have expressed on various threads in this forum I cannot seen you being inclined to do so voluntarily.

Perhaps through their attempts to equate unquestioning obedience of the government with being patriotic. The prevailing attitude in the USA seems to be that if you show even the slightest iota of dissent you are branded as being unpatriotic. FUD can be a powerful tool.

The government's policies are primarily dictated by the lobbyists of big business.


That's ok then, you've got Hitler on your side :rolleyes:

No, it's called taxation. It has been suggested many times before, but you really should go and get a dictionary.

Why don`t you bring some arguments to the table then. You complain about people attacking the authors whose articles you post links to, but if that is all you can bring then where are your arguments.

If you are going to make such basic errors then why should be have any faith in the veracity of any statements of "fact" you make? You can be the first one to pounce if anyone makes even the slightest error in their posts, but you can`t handle it when the same treatment is given to your tirades.

You've probably never heard of it, but there is this thing called Google, but that would mean that you would have to pull your head from the sand. I suspect that it would be beyond you to research your own sources that refute your arguments as then you'd have a hard time arguing against said source.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I didn't say I thought you were a fascist, in fact I don't think I've ascribed any characteristics to you. I did wonder why you were partly relying on Hitler's own words to support your view that you weren't a fascist. Surely there are more credible sources around?

Incidentally, the party Hitler joined in 1919 (called the German Worker's Party at that time) was definitely right wing. As early as 1920 he thought that Socialism and Jewry were linked in some plot to bring down Germany, which hardly makes him a Socialist. His backing at the time was from conservative intellectuals and the military, both anti-socialism, and they saw him as a useful propagandist.

Quotation:
New thread anyone?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I will offer one small bone to jerrek as my final post to this thread.

Extreme right and left wing ideologies nearly always end up being almost identical when put into practice hence his description of Nazi ideology being socialist has some mileage. In essence the two extremes of right and left actually complete a circle, as for the ordinary man under either regime the result is always the same.

The down side of this concession is it matters little whether jerrek sees himself to the be to the right or left, as the key bit is, being so extreme in his views, gives the impression he would be equally at home being communist fascist or any other ist.

The truth is jerrek you have your own ideology and that could best be described as "Selfist".

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I merely advanced that definition as a possible explanation of Justanothernoob's comments. I also pointed out that you appear to fit parts of definition two in my quote.

And for me to explain to you how fascism is right-wing would be way beyond the scope of this thread (or even the forum).

Actually, I haven't specified (in this thread) whether I believe in the Bible or Evolution. I never said I had proof. I was making the point that you appear willing to accept written text as proof (ie The Bible), but demand something more concrete when Science puts forward a theory.

Did you actually read my post, or just assume I was being anti-Jerrek?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think it was a knee-Jerrek reaction...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The point is her scale doesn't work if racism and socialism are both on the left what exact IS right?

He persecuted the Jews - how can this be described 'liberal'. He persecuted communists - why would he if they were the same side?

Evolution is about the development of LIFE not the universe if you were to research it you would see it is very similar to your let the unemployed rot idealism
Do you deny that children look like their parents now?
Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions.
He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

I'm afraid I can't explain why blue means blue - it's just a word assigned to it. How you ever wondered why ayn Rand's theory isn't generally excepted?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

They are NOT "now known not to have co-existed with humans." Where did you get that from?

No.

Does the local paper give comfort to people? Is it inspired by God?

Actually no. Of course there's translational issues but the way the Scrolls were translated in to English showed that the way the OT was translated was very accurate.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else - I don't need to.

Well of course their opinions are a true representation of all Christians, aren't they.... :rolleyes:

I've never said that, neither would I use that phrase. Actually no-one at my church would say that either.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I note that you say 'some', but am deeply concerned at how you quantify this. A tiny minority? A somewhat larger one? A narrow majority, perhaps? Through Christian Union at university I met Christians from a very broad range of backgrounds and traditions, and I can assure you that I never once met anyone who would put their name to the assertions made by that website.

It's just ... wrong. I can't begin to explain in how many ways it's wrong. Their Bible quoting is deeply selective and further flawed by the fact that they quote the King James Bible while being obviously ignorant of the meaning of English words as used by those who produced it ... I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That is because you assume things, and would like to fit me into your little box of how I should be. In most cases, you're just wrong.

I have not actually seen that. Where did you see that?

That is also not true. A large portion of the right, including me, are very unhappy about Bush's spending spree.

However, if you are burning U.S. flags in the street, protesting the war by saying Saddam and the ****'te government should win, and supporting other nations over your own, then you are unpatriotic by definition.

Fascinating. Please explain.

That is not what I said, and you know it. Go back and read through what I wrote a few more times.

The purpose of federal income tax was to pay for the war and to pay off the national debt. Taxes are meant to support the government, not the people. That is what charities are for.

I have. Note my posts directed to JustAnotherNoob. Go back up, and read through them again. You're clearly not reading what I'm writing. The arguments I'm bringing is the same as what she is saying. If you want, quote your favorite author in short, powerful arguments.

I do apologize for my English skills. It isn't as great as yours, afterall, it is my third language and when I wrote that part I wrongly translated it. Yes, I made a mistake, and I am recognizing and admitting it.




So you're saying the man that invented and implemented Nazism isn't credible? Oh please. His party was called the NAZI party, and if you look at the goals of the Nazi party, you will see what Nazism is. Unless the Nazis didn't follow a nazi philosophy? /confused

What are you saying?

German Worker's Party. Yes, sounds like a conservative party to me. Regardless, it was not a conservative party, because it was the Nazi party under a different name. They merely changed the name later to National Socialist Party. The philosophies remained the same under both these parties.

Nice fallacy, one that Ayn Rand clearly outlines in the arguments I've posted earlier on.

Thats real fascinating. You know my beliefs pretty well. I've asked a hundred times, and I'm asking again. How do my beliefs relate to being a fascist?

I've shown you from Hitler's own mouth what he considered to be Nazism (brother of fascism). I've also stated my beliefs regarding lots of social and economic issues numerous times, and I've even shown you how it totally contradicts what fascism and nazism is. Just yelling fascist or nazi isn't an argument. You need to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Now you've labelled me a communist too. Excellent. This is even more fun. I can quote Marx here, but I want to hear it from you. How am I a communist? Me that is a total capitalist. Please. I'm all for little government, no welfare, and hard work. I want you to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Perhaps. I'm definitely one of those that firmly believe in the good of the individual over the good of the community. Both fascism and communism believe in opposite philosophies, good of the community over the good of the individual.

That is a real cute way of getting out of an argument you lost.

Racism is an attribute and a state of mind of an individual. It has nothing to do with political beliefs. One can be a communist and racist, just like one can be a fascist and not racist. The right places a focus on individual freedoms.

If you look back, I clearly stated that the Communists voted for him because their philosophies are virtually the same. Hitler didn't like communists because they did not support private property rights. I also never described him as liberal. He was a Nazi, and Stalin was a communist. Just like the Nazi party killed Jews, the Communist Party of Russia exterminated minorities. Both ends up with a dictatorship, whereas on the right we look to minimize government.

Yes, you're right, it is about life for most part, but you have ignored my questions. Nice way to dodge them.

No, but that is because they share the same genes. Mutations are deformities and do not get passed along. For example, if you take the five-legged cow and mate him, you're not going to get five-legged offspring. My question was for you to provide me with proof that mutations pass along to children.

And likewise I do not mind talking to criminals, "infidels," and so on. It is true he was never disrespectful to them, and I know I'm not perfect and sometimes I get frustrated with people twisting my words and ignoring other parts. I do apologize if I've been disrespectful though. And yeah, he is charitable, and so am I. I certainly don't mind helping people. I give to charities. I donate blood. What I object is that the government takes it and redistributes it as how it sees fit. I want to do it on my own accord.

It was more of a joke really. But I stand with my original point, "I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry."

That is also a cute way of getting out of it. "It is like that because it is like that!" Sorry, but no cigar. Ayn Rand's theories is accepted, by the way. I was taught that in high school, and in university. And she isn't the only one. There are thousands others. It makes sense.

On the other hand, your "it is like that because it is like that" doesn't make sense. I want you to provide an explanation of why you do not agree with Ayn Rand and bring arguments to the table.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I found this link, written from someone coming at the issue from the religious perspective, who highlights the fact that the *only* evidence for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans comes from scripture, and none of the scientific evidence provides support. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that argue from a purely scientific viewpoint, but I thought this one was interesting as it encompasses both science and religion.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gord.rayner...cles/Dinos.htm

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Take your head out of the sand and take a look around you. "Land of the free", more like "land of limited freedom as long as you agree with the government". Did you fail to notice the backlash against the celebrities who spoke out against the war in Iraq? It was veering dangerously close the blacklisting of the McCarthy era.

It's a bit of cloth, get over it. Besides, you are arguing that someone is being unpatriotic by exercising their right to protest. I think you've just supported me on the previous point.

Frankly, if you are so blinkered that you need it explained to you how big business pulls the strings of government the I don`t have any confidence that you could understand the explanation. Just as long as you've got your low-grade coffee and burgers what's the problem?

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/healthinfo/pq/poly.htm

For a person who wanted to get into MIT you do have a shockingly poor knowledge of general science.

Translated - I only support individuals that meet my criteria of "worthiness".

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I didn't lose it, as I didn't enter any argument. I merely provided one possible answer to your question.

You appear to think I posted against you. I didn't. If Justanothernoob had used those arguments against anybody, I would have reached the same conclusion.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I have it on very good authority :

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic.../dinomyths.jsp

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

At the risk of causing further arguments, I'd just like to point out that if the mutations were present at the genetic level of the pre-foetal sex cells (spermatazoa or ova) that went into forming the 5-legged cow then there is every chance that that 5-legged cow will father/mother five-legged children. It very much depends at what point the mutations occured, but yes mutations can be passed onto children. You can demostrate this in a matter of hours using bacterial cells.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

As Dr Wadd said, you obviously don't even have a basic understanding of genetics.
Never heard of sicle cell anemia?
Why do you think mice with their fantastic reproductive rate are used in genetic research?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Free market capitalism
Companies compete for money and growth oppertunities - they are left to survive and fail based on their own attributes - attributes that can change.

Theory of Natural Selection
Animals compete for food and sexual partners - they are left to live or die based on their own attributes - attributes that can change,
I meant to say facism.

Shall we look at your scale of things:

Left: Controlling power/government
Hitler
Stalin
Marx
Charles Kennedy (liberal democrat wanting large public sector)
The Queen (monarch - power over private property)
Tony Blair (supposed socialist)
American Public (wanting stricter controls on public nudity and criminals)

Right Lack of controlling power/government
George Bush (I assume Jerrek thinks he is on the right)
Johny Rotten (supposed anarchist)
Homosexuals (wanting freedom to marry)
Charles Kennedy (wanting lean sentances on criminals)


Does anyone else see a problem here?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hi......

Here goes my attempt to get back on topic :)

I think that Marriage is a very important institution.. I got married becouse I love my wife very much and wanted to show some dedication and comitment to her...

My wedding day was the best day of my life !!!

These days if you live with someone for more than 6 months you have legal rights like a Marriage does...............

I truely believe that a Marriage should be between a male and a female that love each other dearly. I dont think it has anything to do with politics at all !!!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That's a common misbelief

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I thought that that a common in law wife/husband had the same rights ??

O.K. if not - why not have a contract made out ??

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That doesn't actually tell you anything - it looks more like someone giving their opinion. I'm at work right now but when I get back I'll have some links which show markings and drawings found in caves estimated to be about 3,000 years old depicting humans AND large beasts together.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That as maybe, but they prolly weren't dino's, it is generally accepted in the scientific community that they died approximately 65 million years ago.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Failed in my attempt then :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But what about those of us who, um, aren't in the scientific community? And what would you suggest these beasts were? Surely science could tell us that? Or even just have a guess?

Not for long - I'll be in the other thread now :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A contract would not give gays the rights of next of kin, or get around inheritance tax, or get pension payments.

Gays would like these if they are in a permanent relationship.
Hetrosexuals have this with either a religious marriage or civil marriage in a registry office (I think the legal part of it is actually the same, the religious part just has the extra ceremony, ie if you just had the ceremony, you'd not be legally married, hence the signing of the registry)

Gay rights groups just want the rights, not the wedding, not the marriage. Something like a registry wedding, but with no ceremony at all.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Do you know of any pics of these on the web Russ? I'd like to take a view.

The only ones I know about myself, are the paintings down in Oz, where there used to roam a giant lizard (not a dinosaur).

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Russ how on earth am I suppose to comment on this from the limited info you have given in the thread (now come on), I may be a scientist but I'm not omnipotent :)


From the information that paleontologists have they decided that the the dinosaurs dies out 65 million years ago.

You can believe it or not but at the end of the day THEY have physical evidence that they have evaluated and come to a decision. Paleontology isn't my field, I am just relaying info I have picked up from the popular scientific press, there's no need to be sarcastic. :(

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Funny you should mention those :)

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=AMS29842852

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A very vocal minority. One that has enough money and political "clout" to be able to push their message into the mainstream of politics.

Fortunately we have much less of that sort of thing in the UK, but we still have the bigotry and prejudice which lurks around it.

You know that and I know that...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm sure this has been mentioned before on this site, but I suggest people visit http://www.politicalcompass.org/ which divides political thought up into not only "Left or Right" but "Authoritarianism and Libertarianism".

After checking *their* political compass, have a look at the "analysis" section.

(NB I don't entirely agree with all the site's conclusions, but does make you think)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Fun test.

I find myself sitting snugly directly between Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and The Dalai Lama. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:ghugs: :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Been meaning to do that test for a while now. Finally got round to it ....

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Same as Gandhi apparantly.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not much different here tbh,

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

Slightly more left, slightly more libertarian. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

For those doing the Political Compass test, I'm splitting this off into a new thread to stop it distracting from this one...

I've moved it into the Lifestyle forum:

http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/showt...948#post137948

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Apparently allowing gay marriage will promote anarchy::rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...ts&acc&wvx-300

I'm divided on this. I think it is immoral to deny marriage, but I also think democracy must be upheld :(
I've said before: most people are idiots :pp

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Thought I'd post this just in case someone might be interested....

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Sorry Russ, I had to smile. :D
Personally I prefer another kind of spooning :naughty:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Left and Right wing are not references to ideologys, but rather thier establishment of them.

Take Hitler for example ... he started out as a leftwinger as his partys policys were considered 'radical', which means new, liberal, experimental etc.

But when Hitler got into power and had his policys passed into legislation, he became right wing. the policys became part of the establishement and he didn't want them to change, so he was a 'conservative' at that point, he wished to conserve his policys.

This is why Hitler is referred to as right-wing by most historians. It was when he got into power that he became relevant to historic events, not before when he was a liberal. and it was when he got to power that he became dangerous.

In facism though i'm not sure the left/right model applies ... left/right indicates some kind of political contrast, an opposition ... there is no opposition in fascism, so no contrast. nothing to distinguish the left from the right.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Oh dear. I did a lot of research to back up my claim that Hitler was right wing from day one, backed by the military, industry and the middle classes and ideologically opposed to the left-wingers who were trying to set up Soviet style socialism in post WWI Germany. It's all there in the history books.

Fascism is the tyranny of the strong and powerful and that inequality is built in at a race level, with powerful races permitted to subjugate or eliminate weaker ones.
The opposite of fascism is a philosophy that everyone starts off equal and power should be given, not taken, i.e. a modern multicultural liberal democratic viewpoint.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i agree that hitler was right wing, but he didn't start out that way. my original point of left/right not being linially linked to ideology's is still valid though, hell, the whole concept of it came from the french revolution to explain the seating arrangments of the bougeois and the prolitariats, just like in the house of commons where the government sits to the right of the speaker, and the opposition, the left side.

as far as the definition of fascism is concerned, i'll use the dictionary thanks :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I see that the Governer of California has weighed in on this issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3508969.stm

'An imminent risk to civil order'. :eek:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hmm, maybe I was wrong about Arnie.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I am sorry, I don't agree that same sex marriages present an imminent risk to civil order.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Niether do I,it was a quote from Arnie. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Sorry, got interrupted before I could finish the post. I didn't think you had said it. I was disagreeing with Arnie. not you Incog..

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Someone tried to citizen arrest the mayor of san franscico the other day :o

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Bush calls for constitutional ammendment to prevent gay marriage
video
Fox news article
BBC article

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

well, I had Radio 4 on in the car coming home and I was wondering how long it'd be before this thread got bumped ... :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well the issue doesn't go away just because we get bored talking about it :rofl:

If you listen to him he was using the same arguments as Jerrek i.e. children are better off with hetro parents etc.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Truely excellent. That will score him some points with the conservatives, who are annoyed with his spending spree.


For those of you that don't know, in order to amend the Constitution, you need to get 2/3 of the votes in both the House and the Senate, and then it is sent out to the States. At least 75% [38] of the States need to ratify it in their governments. Once that happens, the president sign it and it becomes part of the Constitution.

Since 38 states already passed laws declaring marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I don't really see problem there. The House will probably be not a big problem either... The Senate will be a little harder though. However, at least 2/3 of American support this, so I give it an above average chance of success.

Very good indeed.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The impact:

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/r...colorchart.gif

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Jerrek, has anything been stricken from the constitution before?

I wish he would just comprimise and put civil unions with all the rights of marriage in federal law.

It pains me to say this but 'democracy must prevail' :shocking:

A bit of comic relief
 

I found this on the subject, needless to say it's a satire so don't take it too seriously. I don't want to find a counter argument to each point in the morning.

Re: A bit of comic relief
 

:LOL:

I think that for all the huff and puff (from both your friendly president and your friendly "terminator") I believe that in the future people will find this situation as distasteful as we do that Blacks used to be unable to marry whites :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes. You can remove something from the Constitution by adding a new amendment, like the 21st:

"Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. "

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I've just heard on Sky news that the US senate have just refused to cooperate in the banning of gay marriages in the US. I wonder how long until we follow suit?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The tradition of marrage is from Religion and states what it is between a man and a women.

The state should not get invloved with the chruch and the other way around. DO what the french do, keep church and state seprate.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I thought it amusing that Bush claimed that marriage between a man and a woman was the "most fundamental aspect of civilisation." I would have thought that things like not killing each other would be more important, but what do I know?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well i dont know about that.

I do think that the french are right on the ball with keeping chruch and state seprate though.....

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Marriage isn't just a religious thing though Damion, it allows couples benefits that unmarried people just can't get. The sooner its all sorted out the better.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It used to - please tell me what they are now though?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

'Marriage' is at least two things in our society today. In part, it is a binding legal contract under which two people form a partnership that brings certain legal privileges and responsibilities. But there are all kinds of legal partnership that have a similar effect and none of them is known as 'marriage'. That term arises from the religious aspect of it, which stresses both the spiritual and physical side of the union - two bodies, one male, one female, literally joined together to make a whole (in Christianity at least).

This is why there are always religious objections when the subject of 'gay marriage' comes up - according to the Christian notion of what marriage is, it is simply not possible for two people of the same sex to be married. Our society has now (sadly IMO) gone beyond being Christian, or religious at all in any traditional sense, so it is a little anachronistic to allow legal privileges to one group of people but not another. What is required is a legal framework that allows same-sex civil partnerships but which does not attempt to dress itself up in quasi-religious terminology.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Automatic rights to my partners estate if he dies before me, the fact that I have no legal protection if we buy a house together like a married couple would. I'm unable to prove my income as I'm currently not working because I'm studying with the OU and my partner provides an income for me a the moment, and on top of that I'm unable to make any medical decisions for him if he is unable. All of which would be available to me if we were "married".



Does this mean that you'd like all those who married in a registry office (specifically to have no religious interference) to not be able to call themselves married? As far as I am concerned the name given to the contract is of little consequence, I'm not at all bothered in the slightest that it may not be called "marriage" what I am bothered about is that I currently have no option to make some form of commitment that allows me the legal rights that "normal" couples (of any religion) have.

I can't see that the word marriage has that many religious connotations these days, our language is a fluid thing and the meaning of words change over time. If you asked 1000 random people in the street what marriage meant to them I'd bet most of them wouldn't immediately say "Christianity".

I'm afraid that this idea that the word marriage belongs to one group of people and they have the patent to decide whats done with it is wrong, you still recognize Hindu/Muslim marriages why not gay ones? :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But neither of you have managed to point out what the legal privilages of marriage are these days. We can find lots of examples of the legal responsibilities it rightly or wrongly brings (we could ask Ray Parlour for examples of these). But privilages, tax breaks - not unless you are over 65, greater state benefits - no probably worse. What are these miracle legal privileges that Marriage brings. The last 20 years of Govt. have managed to remove them all IMHO.

The above is not to say Marriage is not worthwhile, but it is not something you enter for financial reasons, but relegious, emotional and spiritual reasons (and to be able to live in the same country).

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

If that approach is taken, does it not imply that the same arrangment should also be made for aetheists?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, some people DO enter into it for financial reasons...my father and stepmother (as much as they do sincerely love each other) wouldn't have got married, but now they own properties etc between them, and with children on both sides, wills and pensions, getting married makes it a lot less complicated sorting all that kind of stuff when one or the other party dies...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A will resolves this and should be written even if you are married (or straight and cohabiting). Insurance companies are more forward thinking than the government and will hapily pay a life insurance policy over to a gay partner if that is what the policy holder nominated. As a married couple your automatic rights to your partners estate are severely impared if you have children, to the point they could take sufficient ownership of your home that they could force you out (though unless you adopt I realise this is a bit of a technicality)

Yes you do, a good (or even a very average) property conveyencor would suggest you own the property as tennants in common (not joint tennants), tennents in common both own a shadow 100% of the property in event of death of a tennant, then ownership automatically is shared between the rest of the tennants.

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here. Most firms and their pension policies allow you to specify a same sex life partner ( in my companies case you must have been living together for two years). In such an example in the event of death, the company pension scheme would provide death in service benefits to the same sex life partner.

Nothing a living will won't resolve. In reality if you have a healthy relationship with him and his parents, you would want to be including them in the decision and they would want you to be included in the decision regardless of what the law said. Similarly the NHS will pretty much overlook the law for visitor rights etc. I know if I had to make a decision to turn of Mrs H life support I would be making this decision in conjunction with her Mother and rest of family regardless of whether I had the ultimate right to overrule.

Isn't that what we call a civil service?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Currently I have no right to stay in this house if my partner decides to kick me out, it's rented in his name even though I have paid half the rent/bills for years and bought half of the furniture, if we were a straight couple we'd have the option to get married, this in turn would give me some legal protection, currently I have no option but to trust my partner not to kick me out.

Again I'd point to the medical rights, I currently would have to ring and speak with my partners family (who he doesn't have anything to do with) to get permission for him to have an operation or medial procedure should he be unable to provide his own permission.

There are also other financial considerations, for example should he be unable to support the both of us at the moment we wouldn't be entitled to the same level of benefits. These are just some of the protection/rights I'm not allowed because we do have the same options available to us, surely in the 21st century a whole section of the community should be in this position.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an activist sort, I wouldn't even dream of marching, or protesting about the current situation however I do still feel aggrieved about the way things are.

You didn't mention the other points that i made, what do you think about them? Should we do as Dr Wadd said?

Edit- I see you've replied since :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

For myself, as a Christian, I see the marriage relationship between one man and one woman as part of the created order, so it is difficult to see it as anything other than that, whether or not those getting married acknowledge God. However this just serves to underline the difficulty of trying to align something that has been essentially Christian in our culture for longer than anyone can remember with a modern legal framework that is becoming increasingly post-religious and is required to acknowledge other ways of looking at the world.

Your point about the correct terminology for any non-Christian union is a good one. In fact if you have a Register Office wedding you are not currently allowed any religious references in the ceremony at all, although the word marriage is of course allowed. I think the reason the word is not objected to in those circumstances by society at large is because it has been a very long time indeed since there were laws banning any kind of marriage except Christian ones. Society has simply become used to it. However in this case we are dealing with something which is not going to gradually become accepted, but which would (in theory) go from being illegal one day to legal the next. This makes little allowance for the fact that attitudes can change a lot more slowly than laws do and I think goes some way towards explaining why it is only gay marriage that is causing objections.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Again though these are things that are given to married couples, an option we are denied.

Again cost and hassle to us that we wouldn't need to go through should we have the option of a "marriage" type contract.


What I'm saying is that if I apply for financial support to help pay toward the cost of my degree I am unable to prove my income making it almost imposable to get any form of help because the government do not see our finances as joint.



Again something we have to go out and do that is automatic to straight couples, even with a living will I don't have any rights, he would detail what he wants happening, hardly the same.

Like I said in a past post, we don't get on with his family and should something happen to him I'd have no right to organize the funeral, dispose of his belongings or his/our money.

Surely this is how it worked for non-religious marriages, the law was changed on one day and the next it wasn't illegal, I can't see the HUGE difference allured to by some. :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I have replied, but some of the points don't hold true with the additional information you have added to this post (renting - does your landlord know he is subletting! living wills and parents relationships), however there are still ways and means, it does require more effort.

Dr Wadd said - stop killing each other? Well yes. Have some kind of civil arrangement - yes - if Homosexuality has been legalised, then the logical progression is that a declaration of partership that is equivilant in the eyes of the law (though not necessarily the church) should exist. After all the Church doen't really recognise a civil marriage (unless you are trying to remarry).

Mrs H sells Wedding invitations and things, she has actually done a couple of Commitment ceremonies, from a commercial point there is no sense in refusing the pink pound, and they have far better taste than some brides. She was shocked when she was told that many invitation studios didn't want to deal with them though!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

From todays Times:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes my landlord does know, I'm listed on the tenancy agreement as an agreed occupier, I guess the fact that my property manager is gay helps :)

As for the point about it taking more effort, this is one of the main problems, these days we are all suppose to have equal opportunity's in life. One section of society shouldn't have to go out of their way to get the same rights as the rest. I thought that sort of thing went out of the window with Emily Pankhurst and Martin Luther King. Obviously not, gays/lesbians are currently still treated with prejudice, many may not like to think of it like that but they are, perhaps this is down to the fact that we were/are not as vocal as ethnic minorities, or women.

Then where's the problem with calling it marriage? If the church don't recognize civil marriages but let them call it marriage then why not gay marriages??

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

This thread is moving way to fast to keep up with.

Being married to an "Alien", we both lose most of the taxable breaks over each others estate, so marriage has not given this one to me (I know mine is an exception - but in these days of cheap airfares and globalisation a growing exception - , I'm just pointing out that exceptions even exist in the current framework).

I'll PM you a will framework you just need to put your name and his into it and get some friends who are not financially linked to the will to sign it and you are done. Costs nothing. Regarding eers and forms, I have to fill the same forms in too, even though i'm married. You also need to consider that the trusteed of any firm insurance have ultimate discretion on the payouts, so they could pay to you even if documentation did not exist.

For a rental property I don't know how it works, but at the next 12month contract signing you probably should be put on the lease.

In the examples above all you are losing out on is the right to the estate tax free on death. This is probably the only fiscal benefit of note left for marriage, and a valid reason why OBs father and stepmother married.

No more cost and hassle than when I bought a property with an ex girlfriend. A simple change of words (in reality, more transactions are probably done in common now due to the tax benefits). Joint is better if one is bringing more into the property and wants to reflect that, e.g. one is paying a 100k deposit on a 200k house you may split the ownership 75/25.

I'm being very thick here - isn't this an advantage. You are therefore a student earning 0, the government has forced itself to be unable to look at his income, therefore you get money?

This is one of the areas more difficult to resolve without civil partnerships (which I hope you can see I agree with). But his living will could detail that he wants you to decide with guidance from the medical profession what should happen.

A will could certainly cover the rest, who the executor is, who decides on the funeral arrangements, how his assets are distributed.

Indeed. What is the difference. Opinions didn't change overnight when Homosexuality was legalised, now we have "queer eye for the straight guy".

(hope I got all these quotes right.)

edit, to save adding more posts to this thread
Absolutly none IMHO, but if you want to get it past the general public, the house of commons, lords (probably the easiest part) and into law, you'd be best not to put the word marriage in there.

(I think we need an Incognitas "Longest average post award" for this thread)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Very true, although what I was saying was in answer to a different question entirely. Dr Wadd's question, in so many words, was if the word 'marriage' is ok today for atheists, why is it not ok for homosexuals. My answer was, essentially, that the use of the word is seen as ok today for atheists because it is not a current issue, it's something that was dealt with at some distant time in history. No doubt when the law was changed there was a big furore, as there is now over the issue of gay marriage.

I don't want to play semantics over this. I know what I believe to be true about marriage so it matters little to me what other people choose to call it. Christmas is another good example of how a Christian term can be adopted and used in celebration of something quite different by a secular society. I hope I am also mature enough to accept that other people disagree, currently those people are probably a majority in the UK and the laws of the UK can't be set by any minority group. If the democratic majority want to extend marriage to gay couples, and to call it marriage, then it should be allowed to happen. However I suspect that while there is probably broad support for the idea of same-sex legal union, the semantic issue will trouble a lot of people and that it may prove difficult to get it on the statute book for that reason.