Same sex wedding reforms.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ficial-documents.html

Here are some of the implications caused by a minority wish.

Why is it never that alterations are never made to fit in with the majority at the expense of the minority?

[humbersloop]

///I can find no evidence that the majority of people support same-sex marriages.///

Well he's not looking very hard then, is he?

AOG, as you approve of the sentiment


/// The slur ‘homophobic’ is designed, like ‘racist’, to shut down any argument — in other words, to censor debate. ///

try this:


http://www.theanswerb...uestion1104738-2.html

[sp1814]

'homophobic' in this debate is completely accurate,

It describes an irrational fear of homosexuals. From what I have seen in those opposed to gay marriage, the overriding feeling I get is fear...fear of change, fear of what this may mean for their own marriage. Fear of how this will change society.

That's what a phobia is.

And the reason I call this an irrational fear, is because the impact to the majority will literally be invisible.

Tax forms will now say 'Partners' rather than 'Husband and wife'?

The sky will not fall in.

[Brenden]

As you s ay sp a phobia is a fear of something - with me snakes - i have no fear of homosexuals just do not agree with it not a phobia an opinion, I also oppose "marriage between same sex couples", marriage to me is the procreation of children between the union.

[sp1814]

Brenden

Not agreeing with homosexuals is like not agreeing with glass, or the colour green, or Venetian blinds.

[sp1814]

Perhaps we shouldn't use the term 'homophobic'

Perhaps 'anti-gay' is more accurate?

[jackthehat]

You oppose gay marriage?........well, hell, don't get gay married, then...

I'm sure childless straight couples will be gratified with your sweeping trivialisation of their marriages....

[humbersloop]

Brenden that's like saying "I do not agree with red hair"

[humbersloop]

Or saying " I do not agree with unmarried people having children"

[Brenden]

Should have said "do not agree with same sex marriage", as you most likely understood with my next sentence.

[Kromovaracun]

Out of interest, if a heterosexual couple marry and decide not to have children (not out of force of circumstance, actually make the decision not to) - is that, in your view, a wasted or invalid marriage, Brenden? If so, should it be illegal?

[naomi24]

I honestly can't see what business it is of anyone who isn't involved. How on earth can it affect them? Can someone please tell me?

[jackthehat]

No-one has yet answered that, naomi, and if they make an attempt they start talking about 'tradition', etc.

I would be genuinely interested to find out quite what the naysayers think it will mean for them *personally*.

[naomi24]

Jack, Well why don't they? They keep banging on about 'they don't agree with it', but that's as far as they get.

Will someone who disagrees with it please do the rest of us the courtesy of explaining why?

[mushroom25]

i'm not a naysayer, so perhaps this can only be classed as hearsay evidence. but as explained to me by someone rather religious, legalising same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil partnerships) will allegedly force religious institutions to carry out same-sex marriage ceremonies against their strongly held beliefs.

whereas the government have provided an assurance that no religious institution would be forced to act against their will, it was further pointed out that current equality legislation renders such assurances completely worthless.

[jackthehat]

<<whereas the government have provided an assurance that no religious institution would be forced to act against their will, it was further pointed out that current equality legislation renders such assurances completely worthless >>

The 'church' is already free to decline holding services for couples for any manner of reasons......
I cannot see *any* couple who would want to plight their troth in a 'church' which had been coerced into conducting the service.
As assurances have already been given, I can only assume that the '...but they MIGHT be forced......' line is simply speculative scaremongering.

[naomi24]

Mushroom, thanks, but I understand it from the point of view of religious institutions– in fact one Christian on here said recently that the churches are ‘panicking’ – but these people are saying that they, personally, do not agree with it – and I would like to know why they don’t and how they think it will affect their lives.

[mushroom25]

// the 'church' is already free to decline holding services for couples for any manner of reasons// - true, but none of which (altho' i might be wrong) would be proscribed by law, unlike any reason that might have its basis in discrimination.

//I cannot see *any* couple who would want to plight their troth in a 'church' which had been coerced into conducting the service. //

peter tatchell would - but then, he's just peter tatchell.

[Kromovaracun]

^ Do you have any evidence for that at all?

[mickrog]

there will have to be a new heading .....sex of partner...lol

[andy-hughes]

The church is all in a tizzy, the moralists are predicting the end of civilsation as we know it - but honestly, why?

If gay couples wish to have a marriage, then the concept of marriage cannot be very strong in the first place if this minor adjustment makes it tremble to its foundations.

Similarly, the church must feel itself on very shaky ground if it is so scared of such a change when society is evolving, as society must.

I fail to see why anyone not directly affected would have an axe to grind.

The only gay person I know of on here (feel free to correct me if you wish) is jack, who has always been the eptimome of sense and reason, and I cannot believe that she is the exception.

From my experience, the predjudice which still infects our culture is at the root of this storm in a teacup. As I have said before, some people resent the notion of people of whom they disapprove, having the same rights to enjoy a ceremony as are bestowed on others, simply by a difference in orientation.

I am married, have been for twenty-five years, I am a husband and I have a wife.

If jack and her partner, and thousands like them, wish to be married, and call each other the Lord-High-Everything-Else, then what affect does that have on me and mine?

Why do people set themselves up as moral guardians in this way? We all share the planet, we all put our knickers on one leg at a time - we have more that unites is than divides is, so why can't the non-involved simply step aside and accept that gay marriage is not the end of the world.

Really, it isn't. Think about it.