Church of England to get militant over same sex marriages

Azari

Although this thread was intended to be whimsical - in that this is the first time I've ever been able to use the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism' legitimately - people seem to be missing the point on which it is based.

It is because there is a link between the church and the state (amongst other things the Queen, as head of state is automatically the head of the c.o.e.), that they have a problem with any disagreement they may have with what does and does not constitute a legal marriage.

This is a matter of church and constitutional law and would apply at any time the church was disinclined to agree with what the secular authorities decided on the matter.

John_Jizzle

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

System

I don't think you can say there is a link between Church and State because the Queen is the head of both organisations. They are seperate entities and the fact the same person is the figurehead of them both is irrelevant. The Queen has very little practical control on either Church or State Policy

PaulJM

John_Jizzle wrote: »

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

Deep breath.

This is away from the point being made here, but I feel I need to reply.

Men and women are different physically, so they like to keep separate. That's not always a good mix.

I don't know whether you've noticed, or even thought about it, but gay men and straight men are identical, physically.

I know of no gay men that go in changing rooms and want to weigh up the other men. I know a LOT of straight men that would like to go into a women's changing room to weigh up the women.

Just because someone might be gay, it doesn't mean they are promiscuous. Don't worry, it doesn't happen, unless you think you're some kind of s*x god, in which case you're probably avoiding the women throwing themselves at you to not have to worry about the guys.

spadoosh

John_Jizzle wrote: »

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

A gay man, much like a women, is not attracted to all men and as such will perve selectedly. A straight man however is very much attracted to all women and thus would perve at all the women. This is frowned upon.

Azari

John_Jizzle wrote: »

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

Yup.

The women would go ape if they were expected to change with men.

Also, it's quite practical to segregate on the grounds of sex but would be all but impossible to guarantee such segregation on the grounds of orientation.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

I don't think you can say there is a link between Church and State because the Queen is the head of both organisations.

LOL.

I didn't say that there is a link because she is head of both.

She is head of both because of the link.

Subtle difference.

Before you go off on one of your interminable crusades, I'd suggest you investigate the relevant constitutional law.

System

Azari wrote: »

LOL.

I didn't say that there is a link because she is head of both.

She is head of both because of the link.

Subtle difference.

Before you go off on one of your interminable crusades, I'd suggest you investigate the relevant constitutional law.

I don't need to go on one of my crusades to realise you are wrong (again)

vyle

The CofE is upset because it seems to think that marriage is now solely a religious affair. However, if that were the case, then straight couples would not be able to choose a "civil" marriage, which avoids any and all religious references.

However, there are lots of atheist (or anti-theist) couples who would LIKE a civil partnership because it completely avoids marriage and the religious connotations that come with it.

It is the government that is causing this tension by forcing straight couples into marriage and denying them civil partnership, while forcing gay couples to be different.

The only actual legal difference between a civil partnership and any form of marriage, in a legal sense is that courtesy titles (such as a knight's wife being "lady") are not conveyed, so rather than "sir john doe, and lord Mark Doe" it'd be Sir and Mr.

Other than that, they're the same.

The government should simply turn straight civil marriages into Civil partnerships, completely equalise the legal practicalities including the transfer of titles, and keep marriage as a religious affair. That way, the church is happy, and everyone else is happy.

I do agree that a church should not be forced to marry a gay couple, because you choose religion, and if the book, the very cornerstone of the religion says no to gay marriages, then so be it. You're not exactly following the religion if you pick and choose the bits you follow (the same goes to religious people who are anti-gay. Don't go tattooing leviticus on yourself), but equally the church should not interfere in legislature.

System

John_Jizzle wrote: »

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

If you're worried about it then the trick is to get changed with a towel. That way there is no need to display the good stuff to any potential homosexual who may be in the vicinity.

I'm not sure what the implications would be of a homosexual seeing you naked but i imagine the implications would be horrific......