Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.

---

Do you refuse to refer to a mixed-sex couple who get 'married' in a registry office as anything other than 'civilly partnered'?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Another question (possibly slightly related) that came into my mind, which is:

Even if you don't agree with same-sex marriages, and don't hold them to be the same as opposite-sex ones... would it not be a nice gesture to offer them anyway? It could act as a small apology for the whole 'centuries of oppression' thing, assuming anybody actually feels any iota of shame about that.

I'm not thinking of the RC where there is an issue of Sacramental validity, but for most other churches...? Wouldn't it be a good witness for the Church to offer a concession it doesn't want to make, just for once in its existence?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Another question (possibly slightly related) that came into my mind, which is:

Even if you don't agree with same-sex marriages, and don't hold them to be the same as opposite-sex ones... would it not be a nice gesture to offer them anyway? It could act as a small apology for the whole 'centuries of oppression' thing, assuming anybody actually feels any iota of shame about that.

I'm not thinking of the RC where there is an issue of Sacramental validity, but for most other churches...? Wouldn't it be a good witness for the Church to offer a concession it doesn't want to make, just for once in its existence?

---

Do you mean, to bless something that God has specifically pronounced against?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is, of course, the definition that has been handed down by the church and accepted in civil marriages until now.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you mean, to bless something that God has specifically pronounced against?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And what date, roughly, was this??

---

There were Greek colonies in Tyre and Sidon in the 11th - 10th centuries BC, as there were all around the Mediterranean.

Nothing written down in Jewish Scriptures can by any possibility whatever predate Hellenic influence. Some embedded texts may predate it, or derive from a different source, but the Scriptures cannot be said to be totally without Hellenic content or colour.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.

---

Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.

---

Therefore we are quite at liberty to do as Ingo8 has suggested - refuse matrimony to people who basically want to celebrate their CP with a lavish day out in church; because that is what marriage has become in the eyes of the civil law: A CP celebrated in a religious building. I think what has actually happened is that people have misunderstood the difference between a wedding and a marriage.

Everything that marriage offers in law is covered by a civil partnership. What they want, as revealed so eloquently by the 'we can buy it all' Drewitts, is a wedding.

They are not bothered by the fact that noting will have changed the day after. They have not realised that the day after the ceremony they will have no more civil rights than the day before when they were civil partners.
All they want is the 'human right' (and there is no such thing) to have a day in church with a ceremony.

The fact that the UK government has given them the right to be 'married' actually is a hollow victory because actually they have gained nothing - they can't have their day in church.
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Excuse a brief interupption, I just want to come back to the mention of gas chambers. (I know I tend to correct people about things related to the Nazis, and this may get annoying. I guess you can call me a Nazi Nazi or something.)

Gas chambers were largely used only on Jews. People with disability as well, as well as concentration camp prisoners who were "unfit to work". Experiments with Zyklon B were done on Soviet POW. Ravensbrück (the female camp) saw executions being done via gas chamber of general prisoners. Gays, priests and pastors were not put in gas chambers (well some may been used for experiments, there's one story that Polish RC priests were those used for one experiment in Dachau, though there is no documentation to verify that).

Gays (and I mean males) died in concentration camps due to the other reasons people died there (hunger, torture, malnutrition, etc.) One exception is the Klinkerwerk sub-camp, attached to Sachsenhausen, a quarry where gays were sent as part of the "extermination through work" order from Himmler.

Of course, those killed in gas chambers may have contained gay people, but not for the reason of being gay.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The thing is, I bet Mudfrog wouldn't take any evidence of straight Christian Bridezillas and Groomzillas, be there ever so many of them, wanting 'lavish' heterosexual weddings to indicate that straight people should only be allowed non-religious civil partnerships and barred from any religious ceremony.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I kind of admire the consistency of the RCC on this issue, even though I do think that refusing to marry paraplegics is rather hard=hearted, but I do not understand why post-menopausal women can get married in a Roman Catholic church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's nice, but as I've just said to Ingo such definitions are not the church's to control any more. Deal with it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

---

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

---

By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

We do no honour to the Bible if we treat it like the spiritual equivalent of one of those old Hayne’s Car Manuals, simply offering a step by step way to holy living. Feminist scholars like myself have been keen to outline how some parts of the Bible are ‘texts of terror’ against women; black and womanist theologians have done the same with biblical texts which are used against ethnic minorities. We need to acknowledge that the so-called ‘Seven Knock-Down Passages’ against gay folk are texts of terror too – that is, they have been used to legitimate hate, prejudice and violence. We acknowledge they are there, but as with modern understandings of gender and race relations, we place them in the context of a larger vision of God in Jesus Christ – God as love, reconciliation and compassion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

---

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.

---

This is nonsense. Marriage isn't a value neutral socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of individual people that heterosexuals just happen have unfairly monopolised; marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

---

By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

---

The difference is that they do not have a foundational text upon which to base their assertions.
The problem with the supporters of ssm is that they, if the are Christians, have to ignore the Bible and have a very low view of its divine authorship.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The only way you can say it's people of the same sex is to ignore what the Bible teaches

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

---

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.

---

This is nonsense. Marriage isn't a value neutral socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of individual people that heterosexuals just happen have unfairly monopolised; marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

It's also the term that denotes lots of other things. To treat the word 'marriage' as a special term that was developed for the express purpose of describing a special heterosexual union is to completely ignore both the etymology and the other uses of the exact same word.

DELAYED EDIT TO SPELL IT OUT FOR THE UNUSUALLY THICK PART OF THE AUDIENCE: The word means joining. It doesn't tell you what you're joining.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so the FULL definition has those extra bits. Well, no doubt you'll be able to tell me whether buying orders in a broker's office are the male or female half of the transaction. And whether the Oxford Dictionary definition example of "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip hop" is an endorsement of polyandry or polygyny.

Dear God, arguing against completely stupid people is no fun at all. It's just not as satisfying as a proper bit of intellectual combat.

---

quote:

---

he word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".

---

Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

---

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence!

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so the FULL definition has those extra bits. Well, no doubt you'll be able to tell me whether buying orders in a broker's office are the male or female half of the transaction. And whether the Oxford Dictionary definition example of "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip hop" is an endorsement of polyandry or polygyny.

Dear God, arguing against completely stupid people is no fun at all. It's just not as satisfying as a proper bit of intellectual combat.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<first part snipped for brevity> And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

---

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence!

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The extended use of the word 'marriage' is about as relevant to this argument as is the use of male and female terms for bits of electrical audio leads.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

---

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence!

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.

---

Yeah, nice try.

Let's see what Jesus said - O look he uses the M word

---

Way to miss the principle while focusing on a word search.

I'm quite sure that if a man divorces his husband and marries a man, he is also committing adultery by the same criteria. But I find it's best to direct your comments to 98% of your audience rather than 2%.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You might as well ignore everything else the Bible says - about God himself, about spirituality, about ethics, charity, forgiveness - everything!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

---

Not to mention all that stuff about the mark of Cain.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Because fertility is not at issue for this in RC teaching. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result. What we do - our sexual acts - must be of the kind that could result in offspring, God willing (including God willing over and against the regular workings of nature). Sex is our end of business, conception is God's. Hence impotence is an impediment to marriage, because it unfortunately means that we cannot take care of our sexual end of business properly. Infertility and even sterility is not an impediment to marriage, because whether children come about is for God to decide and arrange.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

---

Not to mention all that stuff about the mark of Cain.

---

But that is all reading of a prejudice back into a text. You cannot draw out of these stories any intrinsic racism that might be taught there. This is what happens when one doesn't treat the Bible with intelligent respect and reverence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society? Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".

---

Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.

---

I knew this bugged me when I saw it, but couldn't immediately figure out why.

It's finally hit me. Apparently this 'existing reality' is a reality that ignores the fact that 16 countries and parts of several other countries have genderless marriage rules. Same sex couples have been getting married for a dozen years. So either your existing reality is trapped in the 20th century or it's on another planet. Your choice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Because fertility is not at issue for this in RC teaching. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Random thought: why the hell do you have a man only leave his father and a woman only leave her mother? What happened to the other parent? And is it wrong to have a man give away his daughter at the altar?

If you're going to insist that we can't get away from the Biblical definition, Mudfrog, it would really, really help if you didn't stray from the Biblical definition yourself.

---

quote:

---

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

---

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".

---

Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.

---

I knew this bugged me when I saw it, but couldn't immediately figure out why.

It's finally hit me. Apparently this 'existing reality' is a reality that ignores the fact that 16 countries and parts of several other countries have genderless marriage rules. Same sex couples have been getting married for a dozen years. So either your existing reality is trapped in the 20th century or it's on another planet. Your choice.

---

And there are plenty of people on the inter web who claim to have been to another planet. Guess what? They haven't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

---

Erm... I'm pretty sure that a small minority of churches will want to perform same-sex marriages immediately. We'll have to wait a few years (regrettably) for the CofE to follow suit but I'm sure that in forty years it will perfectly uncontroversial and most Christians will wonder what all the fuss was about!

---