Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Same sex wedding reforms.
96 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
<<I suppose it is akin to joining the Church of England (and expecting only Christians to join in Holy Communion) to find that those of the Jewish or Muslim faiths are to be allowed to take the bread and wine.>>
Or joining an 'only-whites' club and then finding that it will be altered to admit 'nie blanks'?
<<the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals>>
Which very good reason would that be?
<< finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary.>>
Why do you believe it is unnecessary?
Or joining an 'only-whites' club and then finding that it will be altered to admit 'nie blanks'?
<<the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals>>
Which very good reason would that be?
<< finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary.>>
Why do you believe it is unnecessary?
AOG
My explanations were to explain the differences between perjorative and non-perjorative terms.
The reason why police no longer use the term 'establishment frequented by gays' is because it suggests criminality and dates back to a time when homosexuality WAS a crime. It's simply an old fashioned term which should fall into disuse.
Furthermore newspapers should not report that someone 'admits' they're gay. Again, that's as bad as 'admitting they're Jewish'.
One 'admits' something they're ashamed of. Using those terms editorialises stories to an necessary degree.
I'm not saying they're offensive terms - just that they betray an attitude that can/should be challenged.
My explanations were to explain the differences between perjorative and non-perjorative terms.
The reason why police no longer use the term 'establishment frequented by gays' is because it suggests criminality and dates back to a time when homosexuality WAS a crime. It's simply an old fashioned term which should fall into disuse.
Furthermore newspapers should not report that someone 'admits' they're gay. Again, that's as bad as 'admitting they're Jewish'.
One 'admits' something they're ashamed of. Using those terms editorialises stories to an necessary degree.
I'm not saying they're offensive terms - just that they betray an attitude that can/should be challenged.
AOG
"Just consider that heterosexuals can also be offended, just as religious people can be, so why aren't their feelings considered also?"
And when heterosexuals, Chritians, Jews , Muslims etc are offended, they are more than able to voice their concerns.
The Catholic Church and CofE are VERY vocal in their opposition to extending marriage (even though the proposals do not include religious establishments).
"Just consider that heterosexuals can also be offended, just as religious people can be, so why aren't their feelings considered also?"
And when heterosexuals, Chritians, Jews , Muslims etc are offended, they are more than able to voice their concerns.
The Catholic Church and CofE are VERY vocal in their opposition to extending marriage (even though the proposals do not include religious establishments).
New Judge:
"the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals and which many people believe should remain so, now finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary."
The reason marriage has been defined as heterosexual is because for centuries heterosexual relationships were the only kind which were really thought of as legitimate forms of love. Which, if accepted, does indeed make an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage quite rational. Recent decades, however, have seen a huge societal shift regarding which relationships are seen as legitimate and which are not - most people (including yourself, if I've understood you correctly) now view homosexual relationships as perfectly legitimate and acceptable forms of romance.
Now that they're considered equal, homosexuals are asking for the right to participate in an important tradition of the culture they are born into. Just like everyone else (and you, it seems), they value marriage as an ancient celebration of love and wish to have the right to take part. And, actually, your average person seems supportive or at worst merely acquiescent/indifferent to the proposed changes. Other posters have shown quite extensively that there is no evidence of a clear majority who are actually opposed to gay marriage. What 'good reason' is there to bar them, exactly? Or to bar churches who are quite happy to marry them?
"the institution of marriage, which for centuries has been, for very good reason, the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals and which many people believe should remain so, now finds itself under threat of radical change which is simply unnecessary."
The reason marriage has been defined as heterosexual is because for centuries heterosexual relationships were the only kind which were really thought of as legitimate forms of love. Which, if accepted, does indeed make an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage quite rational. Recent decades, however, have seen a huge societal shift regarding which relationships are seen as legitimate and which are not - most people (including yourself, if I've understood you correctly) now view homosexual relationships as perfectly legitimate and acceptable forms of romance.
Now that they're considered equal, homosexuals are asking for the right to participate in an important tradition of the culture they are born into. Just like everyone else (and you, it seems), they value marriage as an ancient celebration of love and wish to have the right to take part. And, actually, your average person seems supportive or at worst merely acquiescent/indifferent to the proposed changes. Other posters have shown quite extensively that there is no evidence of a clear majority who are actually opposed to gay marriage. What 'good reason' is there to bar them, exactly? Or to bar churches who are quite happy to marry them?
Also, I fail to see what's remotely 'radical' about the proposed changes. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The OP was about nothing more than changes to forms - I fail to see how this will significantly change the cultural capital of marriage or its importance as a celebration. If gay couples didn't value or respect marriage, they wouldn't be seeking it.
Yet again Old Git is rather let down by his poor understanding of English
<<Once again, how have you come up that 'self-confessed' is admitting you have something you would rather hide? I was merely pointing out that you made no secret of the fact. >>
The Oxford Dictionary
// confess
verb
admit that one has committed a crime or done something wrong//
sp was correct
.
<<Once again, how have you come up that 'self-confessed' is admitting you have something you would rather hide? I was merely pointing out that you made no secret of the fact. >>
The Oxford Dictionary
// confess
verb
admit that one has committed a crime or done something wrong//
sp was correct
.
Given the growth of secularism I would have of thought the church would of needed all the friends it could get.
I have said before, what sane gay person would want to get married in a church, though I do understand if you were bought up in faith it is very difficult.
People are people, if you go the Doctor do you care what their sexual persuasion is. I really do not understand why there is an objection. If you know a heterosexual couple, you know them socially, you have no idea what goes on in their bedroom (under normal circumstances anyway :-) ) and how do you think it would go down if you quizzed them on it.
People are people, not straight, not gay, just people we all have the same hopes, worries and dreams. Who sleeps with who has nothing to with me or you. Archaic superstation or vicarious delights has no place and it would be well to remember, this isn't an intellectual exercise its peoples lives.
If Gay people want to be as miserable as the rest of us let them get married :-)
I have said before, what sane gay person would want to get married in a church, though I do understand if you were bought up in faith it is very difficult.
People are people, if you go the Doctor do you care what their sexual persuasion is. I really do not understand why there is an objection. If you know a heterosexual couple, you know them socially, you have no idea what goes on in their bedroom (under normal circumstances anyway :-) ) and how do you think it would go down if you quizzed them on it.
People are people, not straight, not gay, just people we all have the same hopes, worries and dreams. Who sleeps with who has nothing to with me or you. Archaic superstation or vicarious delights has no place and it would be well to remember, this isn't an intellectual exercise its peoples lives.
If Gay people want to be as miserable as the rest of us let them get married :-)
Hi New Judge. I understand what you are saying. I don't think people who object to these reforms are guilty of homophobia. However, I think the change is necessary to accommodate what is believed to be 10% of the population.
What we were initially talking about here is just a change to official documents which in the long run makes things easier.
I also do not see marriage as 'belonging' to the Church. Why can't there be one civil marriage ceremony that is applicable to all? Why should people who are not religious have suffer decisons made by the Church, who, in my opinion, should have no influence over any laws of the land.
What we were initially talking about here is just a change to official documents which in the long run makes things easier.
I also do not see marriage as 'belonging' to the Church. Why can't there be one civil marriage ceremony that is applicable to all? Why should people who are not religious have suffer decisons made by the Church, who, in my opinion, should have no influence over any laws of the land.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.