silverfox

DJKQ "...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..." Presumably this applies to gays as well?

It would appear you have already made up your mind as to my questionable views DJKQ. Nothing I say will stop you from supporting the government to 'enforce' the proposal on churches

Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will only apply to Civil marriages. Interesting times ahead.

DJKQ - So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right? Absolutely, it's illegal. DJKQ - Here's another question then. Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church...Christian gay people being allowed to have an equivalent church ceromony (equal in all ways to marriage) but called something different to marriage. Problem here DJKQ is it would just be playing with words - it wouldn't be a marriage ceremony so nobody would be happy. It's either full marital rites or not. Half-way compromises, including say a blessing, could still be seen to be discriminatory against gays. I'm trying to steer clear of doctrinal issues which could potentially go off on a very involved tangent. However, don't forget, some churches do not allow divorcees to marry nor 'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples. Is this a discrimination issue?

Are you referring to Christain gays here?

DJKQ - Do you believe that descrimination against homosexuals is ok? NO

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "...What does it matter to you whether two people who > you don't know get married? Since you don't know > who they are, why does it matter what gender they > are?..." It doesn't. I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together. Just don't call it 'marriage'

True, El Pibe and True Loz. There has never been one universal concept that love is the exclusive preserve of a man and a woman. However, you cannot deny that marriage has generally been understood to be between a man and a woman. As the government is about to discover during its consultation phase, the proposal to introduce gay marriage by the end of this parliament will be a divisive issue, especially as it has not appeared in any manifesto and nobody has been given the chance to vote on this issue.

There's bound to be the odd example Loz as any anthropologist will tell you. However, as you are more than aware, if you stop 100 people in the street and ask them what does marriage mean to them, male and female will be mentioned about 99% of the time (maybe 95% in East Dulwich)

Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female Sphillips - DJK asks a straightforward question: Do you in principle think it is discriminatory not to allow gay people to marry in a church? - This isn't a straightforward question and my answer is not necessarily. If, or when, gay marriage is introduced it will only be a matter of time before it is extended to churches, mosques, synagogues, chapels etc. When this happens it will be possible for a gay couple, even if they are atheists and have no religious conviction, to demand to be married in a church as is their right. This could happen in the same way that small bed and breakfast businesses have been targeted for suspect reasons. In this case the church or other body should be able to say no, this is just an attempt to insult and make a mockery of our faith. However, the question of whether gay christians, for example, should be denied the right to be married in their church according to the rites of that church is more problematical. The CofE, for example, is divided on this issue. The reasons for disallowing gay marriage here are based on the traditions and beliefs of that church that the gay couple would be aware of, even if they disagree with those aspects. They are still welcome to worship in that church but they are excluded from some of that church's rites. Is this discrimination? There's nothing stopping the couple going elsewhere if they don't adhere to the rites and practises of that church. Woodrot, I can't help you I'm afraid. If you fail to see why this should be an issue and why it should merit debate.

On the contrary Chippy, I hope I've shown it's not just a simple matter that only involves the gay couple and doesn't affect anyone else. The proposal will have institutional, philosophical, religious, linguistic and legal implications while not enhancing equality or benefitting society. There is no need for it and politicians should be concentrating on other mattters. If they do insist on introducing the matter then the wider population should have it's say. Don't come crying to me when it all goes pear-shaped.

Even progenitor A and B, one and two, would cause problems. If the man were progenitor A, or one, would this be sexist? In the case of same sex gay couples who use a surrogate to have a child do we need progenitor a, b, c and in what order, who is who? Where you have a trans-sexual in a marriage who may have had children as a father or mother in an earlier marriage before changing sex, is there only one progenitor? A minus-A progenitor to denote an earlier child? What happens to terms such as father-in-law, mother-in-law? Progenitor A, or B, of Progenitor A, or B (or possibly C)? Step brother, step sister? It should all keep the lawyers in work for many a good year.

Here you go Bob, you'll love this snippet I've just found: Forget mother and father: 'Parents could be re-named Progenitors A and B' under plans for gay marriage Erosion of traditional words in British statute could 'lead to legislative chaos' Lord Brennan QC said redefinition of marriage could have 'Orwellian' consequences Parents could be legally referred to as 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B' under plans for same sex marriage, regardless of their sexuality, it has been claimed. A leading lawyer said, if the institution of marriage is redefined, the erosion of traditional words such as 'mother' and 'father' from British law could have 'Orwellian' consequences. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114768/Gay-marriage-plans-UK-Father-mother-named-Progenitors-A-B.html#ixzz1p5VxfXmj

Let me go back to my basic point DJKillaQueen. There is no discrimination here that I can see. Civil Parnerships offer everything that a marriage ceremony does with all the same rights regarding inheritance, pensions, tax breaks etc. The issue in question then is the concept of marriage - what does it mean and what do people understand by that term. As far as I can see there is no desire in the gay community to become 'married'. It will not make them any more equal. It appears to be a handfull of politicians promoting the idea. As Loz said at the beginning of this thread, surely there are more important matters our policians should be devoting their energies to.

"...Speaking of figures, do we have any figures to give us an idea of the number of unoccupied pews at your average church service in England?" Not I'm sorry Bob, I don't. Sphillips may be able to help here.

I don't know a lot about Pagan weddings, or handfastings as I believe they are called, but I think they involve a man and a woman

Do you have any figures El Pibe to give us an idea how many couples have entered into Civil Partnerships in the UK since the law was changed in 2004?

Good point Bob, just because something has been done in a certain way for many years doesn't mean it shouldn't change, evolve, for the better in more enlightened times. However, I do think there is a difference here. The transition fron Feudal society to parliamentary democracy is well documented. I mentioned earlier unintended consequences and how despite proposals to exclude Churches etc from being compelled to hold these ceremonies this will inevitably happen. Also, how long will it be before the words husband and wife are banned lest they be discriminatory? Will certain cultures be allowed to keep dowries? Can you have polygamous gay marriages among Mormons and other sects?

Those figures would appear to back up my argument El Pibe. If they were to include figures for Gay unions under Civil Ceremonies you would find there is so little take up to be statisically insignificant. Why then change the centuries old meaning of marriage for a vocal, marginal, minority, many of whom may have no interest in the matter anyway?

Organoleptically As in: "...Dedicated trained staff are employed as salt testers and flavour attendants. These people organoleptically assess the product on an hourly basis to determine the acceptability of the flavour level..." * or?gan?o?lep?tic - adjective Definition of Organoleptic 1 being, affecting, or relating to qualities (including taste, sight, smell, and touch) of a substance (as a food or drug) that stimulate the sense organs 2 involving use of the sense organs or?gan?o?lep?ti?cal?ly - adverb Origin of Organoleptic French organoleptique, from organ- + Greek lēptikos receptive (from lēptos, taken, seized, from lambanein, to take) First Known Use: 1852 (* Cited by United Biscuits regarding the production process for KP Dry Roasted Nuts)

To my knowledge, quite rightly, they have the full protection of the law already. This is what makes the proposed change questionable. It doesn't make gay couples any more or less equal under the law. What the proposal does do is aim to ride roughshod over the meaning and institution of marriage for dubious reasons of social engineering.

But it is totally and utterly unnecessary. Nobody will be any better off, society will not be advanced. It's just a whim of a few politicians with dubious motives.

What are you frightened of El Pibe? Are you worried a referendum may result in the majority of the country saying no? The result could be yes, which would leave the Catholic church and others with no leg to stand on. The matter shouldn't be left to a handful of politicians whose motives are questionable.

But this isn't really about equality and discrimination is it? Gay couples will be no better off legally or financially than they are now under civil partnerships. This is just another pop at a tried and tested institution and in some respects gays are being used here for political reasons. There is no reason to change the meaning of marriage to include same sex couples. If it does happen, which seems likely, it will have many unintended consequences that will only result in conflict and disharmony.

Don't be naive El Pibe. it will only be a matter of time before Churches are required by law to marry gay couples under equality and anti-discrimination laws. So, despite previous posts, this actually has far more to do with others than just the gay couple themselves.