|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
No +Selby is an otherwise intelligent man but here he is at his least good. He's certainly intelligent enough to know that the argument about undermining marriage is not about individual marriages but about the institution. Of course, a civil partnership has no effect on my own marriage, but putting other relationships on a par with marriage - if you believe the institution of marriage to be the basic building block of society - certainly does undermine it. And of course, this argument is not solely about civil partnerships, but about the progressive de-recognition of marriage through the tax system which has taken place over the past two decades.
In what sense is the Institution of Marriage separable from individual marriages. It seems excessively Platonic to me to regard the Institution of Marriage as some elevated cosmic value, like Mom's apple pie, which is inherently devalued by the merest whiff of some kind of alternative. Surely the only indicator of whether the institution of marriage is in a healthy condition is to establish whether or not people are a) getting married and b) getting divorced. Surely the whole point of tax breaks for married couples is not as a means of the government to demonstrate its commitment to the Institution of Marriage but to encourage individual couples to get and stay married.
I would hazard a guess that gay people in civil partnerships will have little effect on the empirical question of whether straight people will get and stay married. But the only way to establish that is sociologically, by examining data. It seems to me to be unfair to project anxieties about heterosexual behaviour onto gay people. If straight people don't get married but prefer to live out of wedlock that has very little to do with gay civil partnerships. If straight people who were hitherto married get divorced that also has very little to do with gay civil partnerships. Gay people aren't responsible for straight people tom-catting around and there is no evidence that the Institution of Marriage is some kind of zero-sum game which is undermined by the government recognising the existence of other arrangements.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I don't want to get too bogged down in Dead Horses, when I'm involved elsewhere on the Boards and have work to do, as well. Suffice to say, I am a great fan of Plato, but this is not a Platonic argument. The fact is that if you believe that marriage is the best and demonstrably most stable way to bring up children, and additionally believe that marriage is God-ordained, then you will want to ensure that it is supported by society. Traditionally this has been done with tax breaks for marriage, and its unique regulation by the state. If over a period of time those tax breaks are removed, other relationships and family arrangements are given exactly equal status, then it is likely that less people will choose marriage and more people will choose to leave marriages.
In simple terms, that is what the argument is about and that is why I pointed out that +Selby's arguments are not terribly good ones. There are other better ones against my viewpoint. Now I daresay these arguments have been visited time and again on this thread and I don't propose to rehash them.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that if you believe that marriage is the best and demonstrably most stable way to bring up children, and additionally believe that marriage is God-ordained, then you will want to ensure that it is supported by society.
quote:
Traditionally this has been done with tax breaks for marriage, and its unique regulation by the state.
Many people who want to support marriage might prefer it if the state kept its oar out.
quote:
If over a period of time those tax breaks are removed, other relationships and family arrangements are given exactly equal status, then it is likely that less people will choose marriage and more people will choose to leave marriages.
Sounds bollocks to me.
If most people got hitched for money there'd be a lot more marriages than there are.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
AS I understand Spawn, it's giving the benefits of marriages to civil unions that devalues marriage.
The obvious answer is to permit same-sex marriage.
That way the benefits of marriage are reserved to marriages and not diluted or debased by being given also to other relationships.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
John, you rock!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It is quite possible that people entering new same-sex partnerships have children by previous entanglements, and that those children should be looked after by someone. Why is a same-sex couple not qualified to provide a nurturing environment for a child?
At the very least, a continuing loving relationship should be more beneficial than a collapsing one, whatever the gender of partners.
And don't give me any hints about pedophilia or misdirecting impressionable youth- any research available shows that the children looked after by gay couples are just as "sane" or "straight' as any other children.
If you choose to make the couple an issue at the church, that will guarantee that the child will develop a negative impression of churches, and that will not be caused by the actions of the couple, but by you.
Similarly, attacking the child at school about the parents will hurt the child seriously, but it will be your fault, not the parents.
Why would you want, as a Christian, to deprive a child of a loving couple to care for him/her?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry- I meant to direct the above toward spawn, but the response is obviously open to anyone.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that if you believe that marriage is the best and demonstrably most stable way to bring up children, and additionally believe that marriage is God-ordained, then you will want to ensure that it is supported by society.
"Best" is not "only." What about children growing up in other family environments? If children are a reason for society to support marriage, then they are just as good a reason to support any relationship - indeed, even a single person. Children do not choose their families. Why should a child be penalized for being in what some might call a non-God-ordained family unit?
OliviaG
PS Slow typer, cross-poster.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
AS I understand Spawn, it's giving the benefits of marriages to civil unions that devalues marriage.
The obvious answer is to permit same-sex marriage.
That way the benefits of marriage are reserved to marriages and not diluted or debased by being given also to other relationships.
John
Simply put the answer is that you cannot conceive children within a marriage of people attracted to same sex-partners (do we need a human biology lesson here?). Furthermore, it's important for a child to experience father and mother role models - so marriage is best. However, by that I do not mean that there are no other ways of bringing up children excellently - just that they are more hit and miss and than marriage.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why would you want, as a Christian, to deprive a child of a loving couple to care for him/her?
First of all, your post tried to predict my answers. Try not to do that.
Second, I don't want to deprive a child of a loving couple to care for them, I just think they should be the second resort rather than the first resort, but certainly not the last resort (stable same sex couples would come above warring unmarried couples as carers and parents, IMO). I just happen to think that children are better off by being care for by a father and a mother. Shoot me if you want.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Second, I don't want to deprive a child of a loving couple to care for them, I just think they should be the second resort rather than the first resort, but certainly not the last resort (stable same sex couples would come above warring unmarried couples as carers and parents, IMO). I just happen to think that children are better off by being care for by a father and a mother. Shoot me if you want.
I've just noticed that that I mispoke. I meant to say that a loving couple who were married (ie in a more stable relationship, were a better choice for parenting than a loving and stable same sex couple.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
AS I understand Spawn, it's giving the benefits of marriages to civil unions that devalues marriage.
The obvious answer is to permit same-sex marriage.
That way the benefits of marriage are reserved to marriages and not diluted or debased by being given also to other relationships.
John
Simply put the answer is that you cannot conceive children within a marriage of people attracted to same sex-partners (do we need a human biology lesson here?). Furthermore, it's important for a child to experience father and mother role models - so marriage is best. However, by that I do not mean that there are no other ways of bringing up children excellently - just that they are more hit and miss and than marriage.
But what does your answer have to do with my suggestion?
There are many different-sex marriages where children are not a possibility -- and many non-marriage relationships where they are -- so I don't see that the possibility of children defines marriage.
At least, if you want to make that argument you did not do that prior to the post to which I was responding. And if you do, you are in fact foreclosing any debate by defining the issue in such a way that only your answer is acceptable.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Posted by Spawn:
quote:
Simply put the answer is that you cannot conceive children within a marriage of people attracted to same sex-partners (do we need a human biology lesson here?)
I predict that here in the States anyway, after the Supreme Court does away with legal abortions there may be many babies in need of parents.
I don't think that the ability to conceive has anything to do with whether or not a couple can be good loving parents. Having loving parents seems to be a crapshoot.
quote:
I meant to say that a loving couple who were married (ie in a more stable relationship, were a better choice for parenting than a loving and stable same sex couple.
Let's protect children then and sanction same-sex marriage!
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
In this province, it is legal for a single parent to adopt a child. As a schoolteacher, I have seen that children brought up in that circumstance were "well" brought up.
I have also seen that children brought up by an individual who was involved in a loving relationship (albeit not state/church sanctioned) who also came out "well"
I'll accept your statement that a stable hetero marriage would be preferable, particularly if it is the child's actual parents involved- but the very high failure rate of these marriages means that we have to deal with a huge population of "broken" children. Surely a "preference" for one form of marriage doesn't mean an absolute ban on another workable form?
My experience is that, in a school, for instance, denying marriage or some other "regularisation" of a relationship leaves kids open to abuse by peers and/or adults with poor understanding of the Second great commandment.
This obviously doesn't trouble you, because you will have been "right" in your position, but it makes you look pretty Pharisaic (or are you using the OT line about visiting the sins of the fathers upon later generations? Neither choice helps the rest of us)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just to move the argument along, I'd like to throw in a quote from David Brooks, the (token?) conservative Op-Ed writer for the New York Times- Nov23, 2003.
His thesis is that marriage is actually a commitment to your making the needs of your partner more important than your own needs (which obviously needs a mutual reflection of this attitude) and that the heteros have done a pretty poor job of this. Therefore, conservatives should demand more from people in their marriages, and
(quote)The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
I can amplify on this, but it seems to stand pretty well on its own. It does deal with the "problem" of children as well.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If over a period of time those tax breaks are removed, other relationships and family arrangements are given exactly equal status, then it is likely that less people will choose marriage and more people will choose to leave marriages.
Are you serious? Do you think people marry, and stay married, because of tax breaks? That people will stay in a bad marriage as long as they get the tax breaks, and that they'll leave a good marriage if they don't?
YOu can't mean that. Can you? Or am I having trouble reading for comprehension tonight? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
A canon lawyer who is also a specialist family law barrister has written an interesting article.
She thinks that the new British Civil Partnerships are equivalent to "gay marriage" (although her editor disagrees, and says there is no requirement for civil partnerships to be sexually expressed) but agrees with those on these boards who question how making such "marriage" available to same sex couples can be said to undermine marriage.
quote:
Further no coherent case has yet been advanced as to how a couple of the same sex living together in a voluntary, permanent, faithful relationship in any way makes another couple's marriage more likely to break down. It is difficult to see how one couple's marriage undermines another couples' civil partnership, or vice versa. In fact the introduction of a marriage-like status for couples for whom traditional marriage is not an option is rather affirming of the status, rights and responsibilities of marriage. These are seen as such a good thing that more couples should have the opportunity of sharing in them.
She concludes that gay marriage will give gay partnerships an opportunity to prove their worth and thereby improve the quality of the argument.
quote:
What this Act does do, however, is challenge the a priori belief, held by some in the Church, that the social goods of marriage can be experienced and manifested only by heterosexual couples. Whether this belief is true is an empirical question. However, the evidence to determine whether or not same-sex partnerships can achieve the social goods of marriage will now be in the public domain.... Further, the fact of legal recognition of these relationships is likely to promote the general belief already widespread in society that gay partnerships can be just as stable, faithful, life-affirming, joyful and loving as heterosexual marriage can be. Therefore those in the Church who wish to maintain that homosexual partnerships are on scriptural or theological grounds a less good thing than marriage—or more bluntly that such relationships are sinful--will have to engage directly with this 'best' form of gay relationship.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If over a period of time those tax breaks are removed, other relationships and family arrangements are given exactly equal status, then it is likely that less people will choose marriage and more people will choose to leave marriages.
Are you serious? Do you think people marry, and stay married, because of tax breaks? That people will stay in a bad marriage as long as they get the tax breaks, and that they'll leave a good marriage if they don't?
Seeing as a lot of married people in the US pay more in taxes than they would if they were single, so many in fact that it is known as "the marriage penalty," I think we can be sure that Spawn is completely wrong about this.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
...Simply put the answer is that you cannot conceive children within a marriage of people attracted to same sex-partners ...
It's claimed that DNA testing show that as many as a third of us are not in fact biologically the children of our legal fathers ... The origin of gametes seems to me to be a strawman, and a pretty understuffed one at that.
[ETA: but Spawn has faithfully reproduced the set of arguments by which the Canadian courts were unconvinced.]
[ 04. February 2006, 01:25: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
What RuthW said. I have a family member who, an assiduous and devout churchgoer in her 70s, lives in sin to avoid the tax penalty and the loss of her late husband's pension. She tells me that some of the pressure for Blessings as opposed to Marriages is on account of oldsters who want unions with the Church's approval without messing with pensions or inheritances (the latter point very untidy with differing jurisdictions and grumpy children awaiting their portion). Indeed, this 78-yr old retired schoolteacher, who had the Bishop of Central Florida's permission to distribute the Sacrament, did not feel in conscience able to sign the bishop's recent requirement that licencees and seminarians declare that they were chaste in marriage and active nowhere else and has put her alb up in the cupboard. TMI, I thought, as I munched on some shortbread.
As well, I know of another retired couple who live in sin rather than in marriage entirely because they and their children do not want property questions confused. To top it all off, I am friends with a gay male and a lesbian, who recently married each other, partly for reasons of benefits and inheritance (in this case, a complex question). The ceremony featured a slightly perplexed archimandrite and a really good party, at which the cenobitic celebrant removed his glasses so that he was not obliged to see who was dancing with whom.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
It's claimed that DNA testing show that as many as a third of us are not in fact biologically the children of our legal fathers ...
Indeed it is. And its even more often claimed that 20%, 15%, 10% and 5% are. No-one knows really.
There is some very good evidence, comparing Y-chromosomes with surnames that are believed to all come from one man, that it is about 1% per generation in at least two families, Sykes & Cohen.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cymruambyth
Shipmate
# 10887
|
Posted
If I thought for one minute that the marriage I entered into over 44 years ago was going to be defined by my eggs and my husband's sperm, I'd give my head a shake! Marriage is not about procreation, for heaven's sake! It's about fidelity, commitment, 'for better or for worse, in sickness and in health'. Children are what happen when the commitment has been made - if you're fertile and can reproduce, and are in a heterosexual marriage. Homosexual couples are as capable of commitment, fidelity, etc. as are their heterosexual counterparts, by the way.
So, based on that specious argument, Spawn, does that mean people past the age of child-bearing, couples who have decided that they don't want to have children, or couples in which one or both partners are sterile - should be denied the right to marry?
And what about people who are not legally married who have children? Are they automatically married once Junior puts in an appearance?
--------------------
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
Posts: 556 | From: The True North Strong and Free | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If heterosexual marriages are about "commitment", why is it that there are so many divorces, kids or no kids?
And why, as admitted by the Southern Baptists recently, is the divorce rate among "born-agains" actually higher than it is among the general population? (I have to assume that all marriages among "born-agains" are heterosexual!)
It is difficult to see how a few same-sex couples could make the situation worse.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Two male Canadian mounties will tie the knot: 365Gay.com
quote:
members of the force, also in their dress tunics, will form an honor guard at the wedding.
I like living in Canada.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
All the 'Brokeback Mounties' and 'always get their man' jokes have doubtless already been made. Ah well.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
What's neat is that no one in the RCMP or anywhere else is objecting either to the marriage or to the presence of the usual uniformed honour guard. They may be planning to marry in uniform, but I'm not sure.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
They may be planning to marry in uniform, but I'm not sure.
John
According to the linked article, they will: quote:
It is the first same-sex marriage within the RCMP. and the couple will wear the distinctive scarlet dress uniforms the force is known for worldwide the Chronicle Herald newspaper reports.
Oh, I'd like to see Stephen Harper try to tell these boys they're not really married! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
This may be a bit of a tangent, but any thoughts on the Ryerson/Margaret Somerville scrap? I sent a short and snippy letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail yesterday in response to their pathetically pointless editorial on Saturday. I heard her on the radio yesterday, and she seemed apologetic but disturbingly clueless about why she's pissed so many people off. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I see that in the election this week, up to five (IIRC) states passed initiatives that "officially" declared marriage to be heterosexual. I wonder if any shipmates were campaigning against (or, I suppose, for) any of those initiatives, and what their reaction is? Is this a major setback, or merely a blip in the radar?
(PS in the interests of disclosure, there was no such initiative in this state, but if there were, I would have voted against it.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
That's interesting MT, because a local congress in the second biggest "Catholic" nation in the world have just legalised the opposite. Could this be a symptom of the declining relevance of the RCC in the modern world?
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sewanee_angel
Shipmate
# 2908
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
That's interesting MT, because a local congress in the second biggest "Catholic" nation in the world have just legalised the opposite. Could this be a symptom of the declining relevance of the RCC in the modern world?
Thanks for the link, the giant cheeseburger. I'd missed it. I don't think it is a signaling a "declining relevance of the RCC in the modern world." Have you been to Mexico? While I know that a number of Protestant groups (Pentecostalist and others) have increasing membership in Mexico, the RCC has great influence, relevance and cultural currency. The number of votives at churches near border crossings alone testifies to that fact. However, perhaps there is an increasing awarness that civic/state responsibilities and benefits should be separate from religious ones.
Mousethief, I live in a state that passed an amendment legally limiting marriage to being between "one man and one woman." I know there was a campaign against it. The "leaders against" page lists a number of religious leaders. However, they didn't really have a chance. They had very little $$ and although they worked hard, didn't achieve the 30% against that was their ambitious goal.
Posts: 598 | From: a van down by the river | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think that the Giant Cheeseburger is making the lazy protestant assumption that 'Catholic country' means 'just like Ireland under de Valera'. Every forward schoolboy in England knows that Mexico has a longstanding tradition of anti-clericalism and secularism. Pope Pius XI denounced the PRI (the party that governed Mexico for most of the twentieth century) for persecuting the church in the encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris in the 1930s. Graham Greene wrote one of the great novels of the twentieth century - The Power and the Glory about it. Catholic countries tend to be anti-clerical countries. Henri de Lubac had to train for the priesthood in St Leonards because the French had banned the Jesuits from training in France. Relationships between the Italian government and the papacy were so bad in the nineteenth century that Catholics were forbidden from voting in elections, the result of the declaration of the Spanish Republic in the 1930s was a spate of attacks on clergy and religious and in Mexico, at one point, the government was shooting Catholic priests. The reasons for this are many and complex but people in Catholic countries have had a distinctly edgy relationship with the Church since the 18th century. So a government in a Catholic country passing legislation that the Pope disapproves of is hardly a new thing.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
By popular request, a temporary change of scene ...
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
So, what are the rules for this game then?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Coupling the Shipmates and marrying them with members of the same sex, dave.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
So who's your pick for Dave, Andreas?
Or do we just marry off the two last posters?
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Quite simple, really. You must say something about gay marriage that nobody who doesn't already agree with you will agree with, or complain about something already said that you don't agree with and never will.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Mousethief, I can't believe you just said that! Honestly! and I used to respect you.
*walks away muttering and shaking head*
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's a Dead Horse. That's what it's all about, Comet. I'm not sure why that shocks you. Wait, I know. You haven't had your coffee yet. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Quite simple, really. You must say something about gay marriage that nobody who doesn't already agree with you will agree with, or complain about something already said that you don't agree with and never will.
So, for example, if I were to say
"Well, it doesn't count as marriage unless it's between a man and a woman because that's what the bible says"
would count? Or is that just inflammatory?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
So, for example, if I were to say
"Well, it doesn't count as marriage unless it's between a man and a woman because that's what the bible says"
would count? Or is that just inflammatory?
That would be well within keeping of the rules of the game, as demonstrated thus far.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
OK then.
Well, it doesn't count as marriage unless it's between a man and a woman because that's what the bible says.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ena
Shipmate
# 11545
|
Posted
But in a marriage love ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) is what really matters. And standing on your heads saying the Lord's prayer backwards every day
of course
--------------------
"Flying through rock is next week's lesson, Fletch" (Jonathan Livingston Seagull)
Posts: 557 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
May I humbly suggest that another Circuslike approach to this thread would be to make insane arguments about how gay marriage will blur boundaries so badly that society utterly falls apart?
Example: if we allow a man to marry another man, soon we will have no choice but to MANDATE fornication between houseplants and toasters. Think of The Children, and also the toast!
(ETA after clicking on "preview post": Grovel grovel arsenic haiku **** teletubby...close enough.)
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jedijudy
Organist of the Jedi Temple
# 333
|
Posted
I'm just glad that God didn't make me the sheriff the world. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Love, love, love, people! Love your sisters and brothers!
Said in Christian love, of course.
--------------------
Jasmine, little cat with a big heart.
Posts: 18017 | From: 'Twixt the 'Glades and the Gulf | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wet Kipper
Circus Runaway
# 1654
|
Posted
Well, the party's over, so time for you to go back where you belong
Wet Kipper
Circus Host
And as the Hosts' and Admins' Funtime posts weren't too off-beam, I'll let 'em stay.
TonyK,
Host, Dead Horses
[ 27. December 2006, 22:40: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
- insert randomly chosen, potentially Deep and Meaningful™ song lyrics here -
Posts: 9841 | From: further up the Hill | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I was musing today about V. Gene Robinson, Jeffrey John, etc. I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage is the law of the land. And I'm an Anglican, which contextualizes the discussion.
Why can't we have one standard of morality, one set of marriage rules, regardless of orientation? One standard for Bishops marrying, rather than a thrice-married Bishop causing minor fuss and another causing the Windsor Report?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Nicely put, Henry.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Why can't we have one standard of morality, one set of marriage rules, regardless of orientation? One standard for Bishops marrying, rather than a thrice-married Bishop causing minor fuss and another causing the Windsor Report?
But of course we do, One for "us" and one for "them" (sorry, you weren't suggesting the same "one" were you?)
Naturally the rules which I don't want to break are absolutely right, the ones I do want to are clearly out of date and need to be brought into the century of the fruit bat.
As I see it those in same sex marriages are some of the few standing up for the value of marriage these days, possible because they have had to fight so hard to be given what other get (in my view)far to easily.
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
