Gay Marriage Legal in the US
Discussion
h and moan if anyone challenges him to explain his views.Not only should the church keep its nose out of the private lives of individuals, so should the state.
Marriage used to have nothing to do with the church or state. Two people would marry and then some vicar would, on his rounds, bless the marriage, and take a fee. In some cases the marriage would have been in existence for years. Marriage was something that the couple recognised and also the community they were in.
The church bit was for kings, but that was only to ensure that the church as an organisation showed it was the equal of the state. Middle classes then took it up and so down to artisans. It was a fashion accessory, like flared trousers.
With the Industrial Revolution came great social change, the most significant one being mobility. Families moved to towns and a woman with children and no hubby became a burden on the area she'd moved to. So to ensure there was some record of where she'd been married, the Hardwicke Act (1750 or so) required all marriages to be recorded in a church. This means, for a while, no Jews or follower of other religions could be married officially, but, of course, they still married along their normal lines.
My gran was married to my grandfather. She had 18 children who lived to be removed from the breast, as the saying goes. She didn't bother with a church. If you want to tell my grandmother she wasn't married, then the best of luck with your injuries.
It is odd that state and church should be bothered. (Well, perhaps less so for the latter. It is their raison d'être after all. But that's no reason to listen to them or consider its point of view.) If someone thinks all marriages should be performed in church, then accept that you only can control the location of your own. The same goes for same sex marriages. If you think it is wrong, they fair enough. Don't marry someone of the same sex.
I can't see the problem. If it is a sin against your god then comfort yourself with the knowledge that they will burn in hell for all eternity.
And the suggestion of groups marrying. This happened in communes in my youth. They didn't last so perhaps it is not a viable option for many. But if anyone wants to try it, I don't care. In fact, I don't have an opinion. Just don't do it where it might scare the horses.
Let's hope, for the sake of Americans, that this is a step forward in attitudes.
Marriage used to have nothing to do with the church or state. Two people would marry and then some vicar would, on his rounds, bless the marriage, and take a fee. In some cases the marriage would have been in existence for years. Marriage was something that the couple recognised and also the community they were in.
The church bit was for kings, but that was only to ensure that the church as an organisation showed it was the equal of the state. Middle classes then took it up and so down to artisans. It was a fashion accessory, like flared trousers.
With the Industrial Revolution came great social change, the most significant one being mobility. Families moved to towns and a woman with children and no hubby became a burden on the area she'd moved to. So to ensure there was some record of where she'd been married, the Hardwicke Act (1750 or so) required all marriages to be recorded in a church. This means, for a while, no Jews or follower of other religions could be married officially, but, of course, they still married along their normal lines.
My gran was married to my grandfather. She had 18 children who lived to be removed from the breast, as the saying goes. She didn't bother with a church. If you want to tell my grandmother she wasn't married, then the best of luck with your injuries.
It is odd that state and church should be bothered. (Well, perhaps less so for the latter. It is their raison d'être after all. But that's no reason to listen to them or consider its point of view.) If someone thinks all marriages should be performed in church, then accept that you only can control the location of your own. The same goes for same sex marriages. If you think it is wrong, they fair enough. Don't marry someone of the same sex.
I can't see the problem. If it is a sin against your god then comfort yourself with the knowledge that they will burn in hell for all eternity.
And the suggestion of groups marrying. This happened in communes in my youth. They didn't last so perhaps it is not a viable option for many. But if anyone wants to try it, I don't care. In fact, I don't have an opinion. Just don't do it where it might scare the horses.
Let's hope, for the sake of Americans, that this is a step forward in attitudes.
clonmult said:
AreOut said:
Zod said:
Who connected them? You did, as an absurd attempt to pretend equivalence between gay marriage and polygamous marriage.
you are actually right they are far from equivalent, polygamous people can have children natural waySir Humphrey said:
Removing the state from marriage would be a better way of getting marriage equality, but this is a step in the right direction.
America takes a welcome step towards freedom on the same day that two British gays decide that the Catholic church should be forced to marry them against their will. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Mi...
Following the same logic, when the Westboro Baptist Church decide they want some "God hates Fag" signs they can sue the couple for refusing to print them.
It's CofE (not that that matters particularly) and they seem to be challenging the CofE to allow them to marry in the church they attend. A church that, presumably, has welcomed them up to now.America takes a welcome step towards freedom on the same day that two British gays decide that the Catholic church should be forced to marry them against their will. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Mi...
Following the same logic, when the Westboro Baptist Church decide they want some "God hates Fag" signs they can sue the couple for refusing to print them.
Bill said:
It's CofE (not that that matters particularly) and they seem to be challenging the CofE to allow them to marry in the church they attend. A church that, presumably, has welcomed them up to now.
Despite what the origianl poster said, that story was posted in 2013. A quick google shows no progress but the couple in question have been all over the news with surrogate shenanigans and being banned from being directors.NWTony said:
Bill said:
It's CofE (not that that matters particularly) and they seem to be challenging the CofE to allow them to marry in the church they attend. A church that, presumably, has welcomed them up to now.
Despite what the origianl poster said, that story was posted in 2013. A quick google shows no progress but the couple in question have been all over the news with surrogate shenanigans and being banned from being directors.Personally this whole thing annoys me but it is what it is.
Guam said:
About time they straightened this out.
Seems like a basic human right to me to commit in marriage to someone you love.
As long as people are equally tolerant of a religious mobs right to refuse to conduct the ceremony then it seems a good development to me.
I don't have an issue with this. Seems like a basic human right to me to commit in marriage to someone you love.
As long as people are equally tolerant of a religious mobs right to refuse to conduct the ceremony then it seems a good development to me.
On a personal level I think the religious mobs are wrong, but they should have the right to not allow certain groups (be it people from other religions, gays, divorcess, whatever) from being married within their walls. However, that should not mean they are able to stop them from getting married elsewhere.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, I think I see your points.As for the age of marriage, then that can be governed by the age of consent - still 12 in the vatican.
The law has already got involved in the assets of people who live together. I have a niece who was left with a massive bill when a relationship broke down after some years, and it was cleared by the intervention of the courts. To an extent.
The old order changeth and the law should look to the current nature of society rather than the past.
I don't know all the answers of course, perhaps very few of them, but I do resent the state and the church restricting liberties for their own reasons.
As for churches being 'forced' to marry gay couples: if they choose to fly in the face of accepted mores and morals, such as equality of women for example, they they should lose all concessions, be taxed and refused permission to sit in the HoLords. But if we ban all private clubs from being partial/prejudice then we will have to ban the lodge as well, for not allowing equality of women. Big ask.
If they refuse to marry gay couples then they should be excluded from any official role in marriage.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Effectively we have two faces of marriage.The personally meaningful bit that gets everyone all excitable and het-up and the legal construct. The former is what a couple choose to call it (marriage, partnership, etc), the latter a matter for law and not discriminatory in any way. The problem seems to arise because, for better or worse, both aspects are intrinsically linked.
Breadvan72 said:
Derek, have you read "Uncertain Unions" and "Broken Lives" by Laurence Stone? He was my history granddad, as he was my tutor's tutor.
I make it a point to read everything recommended by people whose opinions I respect. However, Broken Lives is a bit pricey on Amazon, but I'll give the former a chance. I've read one or more of his books about the British Civil War and found his style quite different to the dry histories of other academics. The books were in my old local library, but I've since moved and I doubt my local one will have anything that is not taken out weekly to keep their stats up.
We've disagreed before about the definition of marriage. My belief is it means what the populous believes it to mean and you tend to take the legal definition. I'm quite happy for 'common law marriage' to be used without the modifier.
I'll read Uncertain Unions and come back for a fight.
Derek
Same old tired clichés coming out, and from the same people too.
Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
AreOut said:
Zod said:
Really? Care to explain in what way I am being absurd?
in a way you deny that other adult people should also have the same rights as LGBT population, based on same(if not stronger) arguments?I'm sure that all the people around the world who are desperate to be able to get married as groups are grateful for your sincere support.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff