nuff said really
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. I have no idea what you're talking about.
What? They've not legalised that yet?
Good job on catching up with the times, though.
Brits are good like that. :)
You can't put legal terms in kilometers!
Actually we have been ahead of most counties on this, what with having civil partnerships since 2004, which provided nearly all the benefits of marriage.
That said, this bill is still a massive milestone, as it equalise the legal standing of gay and straight marriages, and provides ALL of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
Time to really start turning our attention to Section 28
What? They've not legalised that yet?
Good job on catching up with the times, though.
Alas, we do not all live in utopian NESDs, like you and Sissyl.
|
Actually we have been ahead of most counties on this, what with having civil partnerships since 2004, which provided nearly all the benefits of marriage.
That said, this bill is still a massive milestone, as it equalise the legal standing of gay and straight marriages, and provides ALL of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
Time to really start turning our attention to Section 28
Good News!
We turned our attention to Section 28 so hard it repealled itself almost a decade ago!
This thread needs a translation into english...
Well, the stately homos of England will rejoice.
|
|
This thread needs a translation into english...
The Equality of Marriage bill (which will effectively remove the requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman) passed it's Second Reading in Parliament yesterday. Whilst it's not the end of the legislative process, and it won't come into force for a while, Second Reading is where they decide wether they agree with the principle of the legislation - effectively it's where most bills pass or fail, and the rest of the process is fine tuning the exact way the bill will work. It also passed by a massive margin (400 for, 175 against) which will strongly encourage the following bits of the process to work at a decent rate.
Section 28 was an odious rule passed in the 80s that banned teachers from portraying anything to do with homosexuality in a positive light, thus acting to entrench bigotry. Thankfully it went away almost a decade ago.
I live in holland, one of the first countries where this was legal.
I'm gay myself, but marriage is something I would never do, first of all i'm not religious (EVER) so in that point it doesn't apply, secondly I don't think its very wise to marry as there are so many break-ups and then everything is messy.
It is an interesting observation... The same people who abhor homosexual marriages usually think marriage is wonderful, well beyond what statistics say anyway. To those of us with a more... Realistic view of it, what is the big deal? They want it, let them, right?
It is an interesting observation... The same people who abhor homosexual marriages usually think marriage is wonderful, well beyond what statistics say anyway.
And half of them prove with their lives that it is not so.
To those of us with a more... Realistic view of it, what is the big deal? They want it, let them, right?
I have spend an hour arguing with a rather conservative fellow, otherwise intelligent and educated, where his stance was yes to civil partnership but no to marriage because marriage "is sacred union" and what not. The final part of the discussion was him agreeing to mine opinion that he want to deny others freedom because of own delusions and him responding "let me keep my delusions".
Actually we have been ahead of most counties on this, what with having civil partnerships since 2004, which provided nearly all the benefits of marriage.
That said, this bill is still a massive milestone, as it equalise the legal standing of gay and straight marriages, and provides ALL of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
Time to really start turning our attention to Section 28
Good News!
We turned our attention to Section 28 so hard it repealled itself almost a decade ago!
*Blinks* Okay...Very puzzled now. I could have sworn that it was still on the books. Very glad that its not.
his stance was yes to civil partnership but no to marriage because marriage "is sacred union" and what not.The final part of the discussion was him agreeing to mine opinion that he want to deny others freedom because of own delusions and him responding "let me keep my delusions".
Lol I really hate that arguement against same sex marriage. Its like they dont understand that theres a big difference between legal marriage and spiritual marriage. Just because a church dosent support it doesnt mean it shouldnt happen....I mean in the U.S. we seperate church and state (or at least we are supposed to).
Also its a giant waste of tax dollars spent argueing a point that really doesnt impact anyone that isnt directly affected by it, meaning if you like me are straight it dosent affect you in the slightest. Legalize it amd move on to other issues. [/rant]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In ancestral Anklebiter lands, whenever two goblins, regardless of gender, express a desire to enter into the bonds of monogamous matrimony, we save up and have them polymorphed into penguins!
Goblins do it in the street!
True Jeff.
For extra fun next time you hear one say the want the 10 commandments in schools ask if we should put them next to the 5 pillars of faith (or other symbol of another faith). lol
Marriage is like a box, that's my view. What you get out of it is the same as you put into it. Certainly, considering it to be sacred might make you try harder, and those fanatic pro marriage people are less frequently divorced... But the measure of a failed marriage can never be said to be only divorce. Decades of suffering is an even worse one, and far, far too common. At the lowest point of failure, we see lost time, time that could have been put into more worthwhile things.
What amazes me is that there still are homosexuals who want to have anything to do with the churches of today.
I understand the financial and such parts of it. I just don't see the reason for wanting to have anything to do with the churches after their behaviour. Many gay people still do.
Some parents have strong influences on their children it seems, not all poison can be healed.
|
Yep. There are gay folks that are religious. There are gay folks that want a big church wedding. And there are churches that want to be able to perform them.
More and more of them are getting to do that now. And that's awesome.
People don't fit neatly into mutually exclusive circles. Churches aren't one monolithic entity.
I know that is the case. I just have a hard time understanding it. And I have been pretty engaged in trying to get the swedish church to clean up its act as regards homosexuals.
If parts of an organisation told me I was a cancer on society because of my sexuality, especially an organisation focused on how people should live a good life and act well toward our neighbours, I would not want ties with that organisation no matter if some in it thought differently.
Ah well, more power to them.
|
Sissyl,
True for that church. However, for example, the Quakers have no problem with homosexuality so for members of that church a church/religious wedding makes more sense. I agree with you that on the churches with a less tolerant view of differing sexualities, I can't see why people stay, but as an atheist I'm not all that sure of religion's appeal in general.